{"id":147079,"date":"2010-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010"},"modified":"2014-02-08T22:31:01","modified_gmt":"2014-02-08T17:01:01","slug":"ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
-1I\n\nIN 'I\"HE I-IIGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS 15'?\" DAY OF DECEMBER, \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJITII;'GLzi$IJA1;.:    V\n\nAND  _ _ _\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JI;sfIIcI\u00e9VI:=.,Ik';NAG.ARA'I5aRAT: u\nR.F.A.No.'i'8..2;2\/2015'---  1 '  1\nBETWEEN:   'A 1' \n\nM\/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEIJII\/IV_CORP~ORAi17ION LTD\nHAVING HS RIa:GIONAI;\"OI\u00ab*IrICI\u00ab:AT.' -  *\nNO.77, OLD  ROAD     \nDOORAVANIN;.AGLAR'_PO$T  ' ' .\nKRISHNARAJA-PLIRA;wI. '  I\nBANGALORE.356G.;Q16  _ \" \" \nR\/BY ETS'\"CH.IVEF REGIOPIAL MANAGER\nSR1. D'ILIP_ KUM\"AR:._VBARI\u00bb.--'57A1IYI%:ARs\n\n.,I\u00a5jK.I~--IAI\\IUI\\\/IIAI\\I*I'IIA RAJ\n_ J S\/O \"P.H.KRIsI-INA RAJ\n'AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS\n\n-  5; V' 'SR1. P.K.BHARAT KUMAR\n\nS\/O P.H.KRISHNA RAJ\nAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS\n\nRESPONDENT NO.1 TO 8 ARE<\/pre>\n
R\/AT NO. .1 7\/ I. MADRAS BANK ROAD
\nBANGALO REWBESOOO 1<\/p>\n
I–4<\/p>\n
HAJEE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD<\/p>\n
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE .\n<\/p>\n
COMPANIES ACT 1956 8: HAVING ITS REGD,  I
\nO%*’I*”ICE AT IIAJEE SICRVICE STATION. NO,.. I?  ‘ A.  <\/p>\n
NEW No.36. ST. MARKS ROAD. BANGALcsRE:S’So__fem” <\/p>\n
R\/BY HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECT__IOR:V’-.. I<\/p>\n
   A   I<\/p>\n
(By: M\/S KING & PARTRIDGE, ADV
\nSRI.T.SURYANARAYANA FOR R4}<\/p>\n
.   To \u00abR5~.;”*.,,  V<\/p>\n
THIS RFA IS FII\u00a7EIj)’U,\/_SI’T’I96.I:(};F~.CPC, AGAINST THE
\nJUDGMENT AND DEcI<IaT:j:wDA\u00a2:jI\u00ab3D\u00a7'"o_6,:o8';\u00e9o1o PASSED IN
\no.S.6581\/2oo4'~QN 'I'H_E \u00a7fI:;I3: "o\ufb01'Tt~II:…I\u00a7<-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
\nAND SESISIGIIISEAI'I-JI'j'I\u00a7GE,_  DECREEING THE
\nSUIT 1\u00abfo_Ig PEI\u00a7IJIA1\u00a7JEI'lT' <\/p>\n
Tiiius " App1:'\u00e9\u00a7IA:–G:' on for Admission this day.
\nAJIT J.GUNJALVJ;., de_IiVe'red the following:<\/p>\n
 ….. MJUDGNIENT<\/p>\n
 'II\ufb02af)pea1 is by the defendant in<\/p>\n
 \/2004 for ejectment In respect of the suit<\/p>\n
I  schediiie property with a further direction to them to
\n Nfeic\u00e9ite and deiiver Vacant possession, directing them to<\/p>\n
"Day a sum of Rs.85.00 lakh towards mesne profits<\/p>\n
towards iIIega.I and unauthorised occupation of the suit<\/p>\n
property from 1.4.2003 to 1.9.2004 and ah'-so with future<\/p>\n
M')<\/p>\n
W3-\n<\/p>\n
mesne profits at Rs.5′:OO lakh pin. from the date “of suit
\ntill the date of Vacating and delivering l,h.\u20ac~.:iV’E_i(,’fH_.\ufb02lI
\npossession of the suit property and also foil <\/p>\n
injunction etc.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts can be surnmarised asifoliylowsi’;<\/p>\n
Plaintiff No.1 is. the faithlerpandpplhainti-ff l’$os.2 and
\n3 are the sons.  Family.\n<\/p>\n
The suit property property of the
\nplaintiffs   earlier by one
\nB.N.Put’talin:g;a   rio””niore. The suit property
\nwas  Piianumanthaiah, father<\/p>\n
of Plaintiff “No’.’1.ai1dA’grafidfather of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
-‘”~.__to Cal Teiiiiidia Ltd., pursuant to a registered<\/p>\n
 18.5.1955 on a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
 for a period of five years with an<\/p>\n
l*..option” the lessee to get the lease renewed upto<\/p>\n
  by three renewals of 5 years each. The<\/p>\n
   Hpllaintiffs case is that the monthly tenancy commencing<\/p>\n
if from the first day of each Calendar month. The lease<\/p>\n
was extended upto 1965. M,\/s Ca} Tex India did twig;<\/p>\n
II*\u00a7<\/p>\n
 b3″\/xnieans of cheque.\n<\/p>\n
‘*._and thereby altering structure of<\/p>\n
 schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
4,<\/p>\n
choose to renew the lease as provided in the lease deed<\/p>\n
nor did it surrender possession of the suit p:'(:pertyv to<\/p>\n
the owner and continued to be in posses-~sion”vof ;ti’:oe”:<\/p>\n
same as tenant holding over by\u00bb.payingu’
\nRs.4O0\/W. V A’ A it i
\nto the share of the fiittst’-v..vp1ainti.ff’
\nproceeding’. In the  lithe petroleum
\nCompanies were s._._Cal Tex India
\nLtd., was taken Lover of India. Now it
\nV W l A As a<\/p>\n
is known 3.-as” Hindl’ustan._ Petroie.um Corporation.<\/p>\n
result,\u00bb  .’defe.i1dant—   into possession and
\ncontinued to   of the property as tenant
\nholding oifeztdby payirgg lthle same rent every month to the<\/p>\n
The ease of the<\/p>\n
 the defendants are making new<\/p>\n
Con’str’uetiorislV; and structural changes in the property<\/p>\n
the building and<\/p>\n
“‘–dl’2_’aA.i~io_\\2tfe~d the third parties to carry on their business in<\/p>\n
The defendants are also<\/p>\n
V’ collecting huge amount from third parties by way of rent<\/p>\n
and deposits and getting huge pecuniary benefits at the<\/p>\n
rlffiililt  r)fu ‘
\nIt appears that the suit  <\/p>\n
in Marbitralll<\/p>\n
-5″\n<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.4O\/W per sq.ft. per month in collusion with<\/p>\n
each other. In the circumstances, the plain’tiffs\u00ab.g”nad<\/p>\n
issued notice on 6.3.2003 to all the <\/p>\n
Section}.O6 of Transfer of PropertyAct;ltervntiimltin\u00e9gig.the <\/p>\n
tenancy and calling upon then} lvacaterandg d_eli\\fer_<\/p>\n
possession of the property’la:nd_V_gclaifned’ <\/p>\n
at the rate of Rs.10,0Q  ‘frornvithe said
\ndate. The premises   quit notice
\nand a belatedreply   defendants
\ndenying   other untenable
\n snit contending that the
\ndefenda_nts_  denying the plaintiffs’ title<\/p>\n
to the sttit.dp1’operty_sand defendants are liable to be<\/p>\n
  The plain’tifis would claim that the defendants<\/p>\n
 pay mesne pro\ufb01ts for illegal and<\/p>\n
occupation at the rate of Rs.l0.00 iakh<\/p>\n
  however, it was restricted to Rs.5.00 lakh.<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs sought for eviction of the<\/p>\n
  .\u00e9 _Hd_e-fendants.\n<\/p>\n
3. Defendants entered appearance and filed<\/p>\n
written statement inter alia contending that indeed the<\/p>\n
9″”;\n<\/p>\n
,3; 3;\n<\/p>\n
“A ‘K 5<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
\u00ab\/
\n931′”…-M<\/p>\n
_g,t<\/p>\n
l~’*’- defendantwa Government company is having’ its office
\nin Mumbai and Zonal Office at Chennai
\noffice at Bangalore submits that
\nmaintainable and the suit is liableto
\ncause of action is made out.\n<\/p>\n
that prior to the institutiof1i.,::o’f._thepresent;<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs had issued coupleof “notices ‘o11″.?l3.3. 1985<\/p>\n
notices under.:;S:VectidnW Vfllrwansfer of Property
\nAct, no   initiated. In the
\ncircurnstanlcgesl, llftfte is not at all
\nmaintainahle.   contended that there is<\/p>\n
an arbitral-_clause__ aildthe plaintiffs have not exercised<\/p>\n
  Hence,-\u00ab-they contend that the suit is not<\/p>\n
 ‘::l1.ain.tai.gjab’l’e:’ indeed, the defendants would not deny<\/p>\n
thetitle of plaintiffs and they are the coparceners of<\/p>\n
Iythe  family property. The defendants certainly<\/p>\n
V’ lC_’would_. admit that Hanumanthaiah had executed a lease<\/p>\n
deed in favour of the defendants’ predecessor<\/p>\n
ll company in the year 1955. T he said lease was extended\/:?<\/p>\n
4:’>?”‘”‘N ”\n<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span>
\nfrom time to time. After M\/S. CalteX’s Acquisition of<\/p>\n
Undertaking in India Act, 17 of 1977, the devfenldants<\/p>\n
are in occupation of property and are pa.ying”the<\/p>\n
They would also contend that the _:o\u00a3\u00ab<\/p>\n
tenancy is not in conformity with-l.s.\u00e9c\u00a3:pn…’1-oefnf <\/p>\n
Transfer of Property Act’ ‘\u00ab.Andlll’howireVg1f..i, <\/p>\n
dismissal of the suits.  _  _ pp<\/p>\n
4. The 411″  appearance and
\nfiled Written statement.   the defendant
\nis a dealer   They would also
\nadmit’  Z__ -property was leased by
\n India Ltd., pursuant to<\/p>\n
lease “deed  1955 for establishing petrol bunk.<\/p>\n
They  plaint averrnents and also claim not<\/p>\n
H i.ia’.:-ile to lpay’;_mVesne profits or damages and hence, there<\/p>\n
is no “cause of action against them. Based on these<\/p>\n
   learned trial judge has framed the following<\/p>\n
issues:\n<\/p>\n
i) Whether the quit notice dated 6.3.2003 is<\/p>\n
valid? I<\/p>\n
ii) Whether the plaintiffs are ent’itled to vacant
\npossession of the schedule property? <\/p>\n
iii} Whether the plaintiffs are entitled-\u00ab
\nprofits? _    V<\/p>\n
iv) Whether the plaintiffs  lxltoulp
\npermanent injunctic-nlsongh”t._for’?l,:_’:  if <\/p>\n
V} To what order or decl’i”ee’:;’A.A_lV A’ if  <\/p>\n
5. Learned trial  hav.ing.VV’lreglard” the”.<\/p>\n
evidence 1et-in by the ‘,p’la.i’n–tiffS. asfwelill as the
\ndefendants, recordeda;:tha:t’v:tl_1.el”qnit notice dated<\/p>\n
6.3.2003     lwith Section 106<\/p>\n
of the”‘l’  the’-p1alir1’t’iffs are entitled to Vacant
\npossession   property. Insofar as the<\/p>\n
rnesne profit’ or’V–.darnVages are concerned, learned trial<\/p>\n
   thattiie defendants are liable to pay a sum<\/p>\n
    as rnesne profits. Being aggrieved by<\/p>\n
tne saidl~iii.dt’gment and decree, the defendants are before<\/p>\n
V  n this ..c:o_1irt.\n<\/p>\n
6. Having regard to the findings recorded by<\/p>\n
the leaned trial judge on the two main issues i.e.. the<\/p>\n
quit notice as well as entitlernent of the plaintiffs for<\/p>\n
vacant possession, }\\\/Ir.ArVi.nd Desai learned counsel<\/p>\n
-9″\n<\/p>\n
appearing for the defendants would submit’. that the quit<\/p>\n
notice which is issued under Section 106 of the<\/p>\n
is iliegal. He further submits that _<\/p>\n
contains an arbitral clause. Hence, the.’ques:ti_on: of t1r_:1’e’> it<\/p>\n
plaintiffs initiating ejectment “pro:cee*ding_s’-. VWou1:d__ liifft<\/p>\n
arise. He further submits without  anyi’<\/p>\n
evidence on record, learned…trial ‘judge  determined
\nthe damages at   submits that in the
\nabsence of  ;d\u20ac:t\u20acrrnination is
\nimpermis;s’ib\u00a7e.,   the plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
not t]riei”ov.tri”e:prs of the suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
   for the plaintiffs would<\/p>\n
suppvort thej udgmeiit and decree passed by the learned<\/p>\n
.A trial  submits that the notice is in conformity<\/p>\n
 ._\u00a7{}.itl1 of the ‘l’.P.Act. He further submits<\/p>\n
 1’t_is’not open for the defendant to question the title<\/p>\n
it it oif-._the’ plaintiffs once having put in possession by the<\/p>\n
ulpfather of plaintiff No.1. Insofar as the arbitral clause is<\/p>\n
concerned, he submits that notwithstanding the fact
\nthat such a defence was taken in the written statement,<\/p>\n
an application ought to have been moved by the<\/p>\n
mi
\n:;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–l{}m<\/p>\n
defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and<\/p>\n
sought. for stopping of the proceedings. Hence,4.iti~-igsnot<\/p>\n
open for the defendants now to contend <\/p>\n
itself is not rnaintainable, becausetof the *<\/p>\n
Insofar as the damages are eor1ieeri[1_’ecl’i; hie_s11l:)rnit’s..tliat<\/p>\n
if the defendant Vacates the”‘rp’rope1″tly  thee’<\/p>\n
plaintiffs would forego thelmelai-ni  -..darnages as
\ndetermined by the learned  _\n<\/p>\n
8.  r_egar_d’totlthef\u00e9iontentions urged, the<\/p>\n
following pointstwoiild arise for eonsideration:<\/p>\n
hi}, it ._ V  plaintiffs’ suit is to be non\u00ab<\/p>\n
ll _  udder Section 106 of the T.P.Act’?<\/p>\n
   A. \\lVh’et’r1er the judgment and decree passed
\n by the learned trial judge warrants<\/p>\n
‘ ‘ interfe renc e’?\n<\/p>\n
~~  V Whether the learned trial judge was
\nit justified in determining the damages and<\/p>\n
mesne profits at Rs.85.00 lakh?\n<\/p>\n
iv) Whether the suit. is maintainable in View of<\/p>\n
the arbitral clause in the lease agreement?<\/p>\n
“EL<\/p>\n
9. Point Nozl: Insofar as quit notice is<\/p>\n
concerned, we are of the View that Section <\/p>\n
T.P.Act is watered down by the amendment
\nthe said provision. What _is~..reqLiired”‘i–is llo1’i}yyll’v..a ‘
\ntermination notice to be issiied<.a17:di' it  been<\/p>\n
Learned trial judge has dealtwith the  of the<\/p>\n
matter extensively at .parapV.il':-{of the2juldgn'ien't:. It is to
\nbe noticed that the   possession of
\nthe suit schedule  to the lease
\nagreement"    a monthly rent of
\nRs.4ooi\/mifiaily'heifer:'i–a_:j\u00a7elfi\u00a7d"' five years. But the
\n to renew the lease deed.\n<\/p>\n
In the circttrnstances, the plaintiffs have issued a notice<\/p>\n
  onl:c,j6l’.3:,,’$O03 tol”all”‘thle defendants under Section 106 of<\/p>\n
the” notice that the entire area which is<\/p>\n
leased  of the defendants is 7121 Sq.Mtrs.<\/p>\n
7-which  more than 14 Sq. Mtrs. We also notice that
\nl.”ll.Anot.\\yithstanding the service of notice under Section 106
\n   the T.P.Act, the belated reply was issued on<\/p>\n
if 31.3.2003 admitting the tenancy and payment of rent to<\/p>\n
plaintiff No.1, but denied the plaintiffs title to the suit<\/p>\n
_\u00a7x<\/p>\n
5…;\n<\/p>\n
property and the quit notice issued is not a valid notice.
\nIt is relevant to extract Section 106 of the <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
“Sec.106{I} : In the absence ofCon\u00bbtr{cic’t-  it<\/p>\n
local law or usage to the _contf*afy..or local.
\nor usage to the contrargj,’-adieasetyhof  ‘
\nproperty for a_gr_iculi:urql.VVV:Ao.r_ ‘xnantlfctcturiiilg
\npurposes shall be-i.:eZr3e’n’iedVj’  etlease from
\nyear to year, terrntnetble,i’v’oVr{V:  either
\nlessor or:..les:se.e,   and a
\nlease :.of””p_rop’ei=’ty for any other
\npurioose, (:1 lease from
\n on the part of
\neithef \u00ab. lessorf by \ufb01fteen days’<\/p>\n
notice; *1-‘.. a<\/p>\n
   said provision is read, the quit notice<\/p>\n
dated”-.6.vf3.’2C03:=.clearly indicates that the said notice is<\/p>\n
served “on  Dayanand Pai who according to the
\n “piainitiffs was sub–lessee under defendant. No.4. We are
\nthe View that the termination notice under Section<\/p>\n
 D\u00bb  of the Act cannot. be faulted. It is also not brought<\/p>\n
to our notice as to how the notice under Section 106 of<\/p>\n
W13”\n<\/p>\n
the T.P.Aet is bad in law. The Apex Court in the case
\nof M\/s Nopany Investments {P.} Ltd., \u00a5’,Sae\u00a3f:ti:e3{ch
\nSingh (HUF) reported in AIR 2008 so
\nthat no notice to quit is
\nthe T? Act in order to enable
\ndecree of eviction againstthje’-.apbe11ant._V has’: i
\nalso been expressed in the’V.dec.i’s’idr1,Q.f t.}’i.\u20ac”‘r\u00b0*xp\u20aci’:{\u00a7 Court in
\ncase of V\ufb02hanapal Ammal {AIR
\n1979 SC   .the”V\u00a7reas0ning given by
\nthe   said issue and the
\nevidence,  the \ufb01ndings recorded
\nby theitriali “said issue cannot be faulted.
\nHerice,_  accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
1  No.2: This takes us to the next<\/span><\/p>\n
qij’estiO:n’vi:egarding the award of damages. In this<\/p>\n
 “rrcg_ard’; the defendants are on firm footing. The<\/p>\n
hdiscussion regarding awarding of the damages is to be<\/p>\n
it d\ufb02ifound at para 21 of the judgment of the learned trial<\/p>\n
judge. We are constrained to observe that the claim<\/p>\n
made by the p1a.intii”fs to the extent of Rs.85.00 lakh has fr,<\/p>\n
\/cg
\n g,<\/p>\n
.a~\ufb01””MWM<\/p>\n
44-\n<\/p>\n
been granted in its entirety. The perusal of the” said<\/p>\n
reasoning does not indicate as to on what. pI’\u20acI11’l.$if3\u00ab\u00ab.._l,’li!.v(3<\/p>\n
learned trial judge has come to the conelus_iLir1  ‘<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are entitled to damages._at the  ll<\/p>\n
lakh. No evidence was let~in eitliler bvtllielplaiiintiff <\/p>\n
the defendants in supportllofrtlie claim ‘fare if<\/p>\n
entitled for a sum of  d’a:.rnagels’or not. The
\nlearned trial judge  plaintiffs
\ncontention line square foot
\nfetched an? per sq.ft and hence
\n  lakh. ‘Whenever
\ndamagels.ia1’.e  evidence has to be<\/p>\n
letwinlqy the “plaintiffsv.in”‘ ‘support of their claim and the<\/p>\n
‘ll”=defer1.da:r1ts”-are required to lead evidence denying the<\/p>\n
averrnents; ” llli”..vd_}i’\u20acd. no such exercise appears to have<\/p>\n
been!  it We are of the view that the said<\/p>\n
xi'”.__lVdetemiination of damages at Rs.85.00 lakh itself is<\/p>\n
 _ witliout any basis which warrants interference by this<\/p>\n
  CGt,11’t and hence, answered accordingly. <\/p>\n
 ”  , Athe\u00e9plaintiiff has<\/p>\n
i\u00a73_<\/p>\n
12. Point No.3: This takes us to the defence<\/p>\n
taken by the defendants. It is not in dispute<\/p>\n
father of the plaintiff had put the  <\/p>\n
possession of the suit property__p.ursua_.–n”t””ta’_’:t.he<\/p>\n
l’eas.e ” ”\n<\/p>\n
deed of the year 1955. In fact,  fact<\/p>\n
admitted by the defendant_:’1;h_ems’e1yespin’th’eir.. replyf’<\/p>\n
notice. It is also  not  in — ..t,h\u00a2E arbitral
\nproceedings, the suit’    ‘the share of the
\nfirst plaintiff…   property was
\nleased in  the father of the
\nfirst  \ufb02thevilew that it is not open to
\nthe  of the plaintiffs. The only
\nquest_ionVyffl1iVc11w is  to be looked into is, whether<\/p>\n
initiated proceedings and was legally<\/p>\n
    We are of the View that, it is not open<\/p>\n
for-‘..__the’ defendant to contend that the plaintiffs do not<\/p>\n
 nhaveu ‘title. Moreso, having regard to the fact that the
\nif ‘~_Vp’r–operty in question was leased by the father of the first<\/p>\n
 ” -“plaintiff. Another reason as to why the defendant<\/p>\n
cannot deny the title of the plaintiffs is that, even after<\/p>\n
the property fell to the share of the first plaintiff in an<\/p>\n
… ”\n<\/p>\n
45″\n<\/p>\n
arbitral proceedings, the defendant has been paying the
\nrents to the first plaintiff. This is another reason as to
\nwhy that defendants cannot deny the title_.:”of=\u00ab.:lthe
\nplaintiffs. The Apex Court in the case
\nPasricha Vs. Jagannath and others if
\n1976 so 2335 has observed tha{‘t,Vln\u00a7>t–\u00a2ip\u00e9fn
\ndefendant to deny the titlellofsjlpithe has it
\nbeen put in possession’  to the
\nplaintiffs. It is only the   terminate the<\/p>\n
tenancy and \u00a7i1’i’s.ti:tute1’_the  The tenant<\/p>\n
in suehwai’ i\u00e9igstdpped frornouestioning the title of
\nthe landlordl  116 of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
The Vtenanlt*::a11not that the landlord had title to<\/p>\n
.–V.,.i.,th\u20ac[_.premises atfthef commencement of the tenancy.<\/p>\n
 s.__Ll?:1_de1’geaneral law, in a suit between landlord and<\/p>\n
the-…tenv_a11t:t.he question of title to the leased property is<\/p>\n
K””‘–._f:”‘irreleyan:t. Thus. we are of the View that it is not open<\/p>\n
  ‘foI*-the defendants to deny the title of the plaintiffs in an<\/p>\n
  -\u00bb-ejieetment proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
l8. Irisofar as the eontention regarding the<\/p>\n
4?,<\/p>\n
H’<\/p>\n
ma.intainabilii:y of the suit moreso. having regard to the %<\/p>\n
yaw “””\n<\/p>\n
  ‘ri:u\u00bblyi’l certi\ufb01ed copy.\n<\/p>\n
M17-\n<\/p>\n
arbitral clause, we are of the View that such a defence
\nno doubt was taken in the written staternent.__ But<\/p>\n
however, it appears that it was not seriously <\/p>\n
However, learned counsel for the defenciantsrwllWoiild V’<\/p>\n
submit that an application was’–rho’-fed,l.ll<\/p>\n
learned trial judge for framinlg\u00abV_ xladd’itio~naAl it<\/p>\n
regarding maintainability of ‘theV–isuit: vr1o~vx.zex:ef’;iio’ order’<\/p>\n
was passed. We not-me tha’t”fo.rh maintainability of
\nthe suit, when there  ari;.j.fr’aiV.,\u00bbcl.ause, such a<\/p>\n
Contention is~v1″eqi’&ireti to be ‘tal'<ei1..,ir1_7the first instance<\/p>\n
before't'th"estia'te\u00abri'ient"_lis'"tiled. indeed, Section 8
\nof the }'\u00ab_rbitra'ti_oiiV.l 'jg-i:_1"'c1\u00ab ..C'on.-;:iliation Act , 1996 indicates<\/p>\n
about powder to referdparties to arbitration where there is<\/p>\n
ll"v.,an'~i:r..arb.itra'tion agreernent. Indeed Sub Section (2) of<\/p>\n
  that an application referred to in<\/p>\n
SLib._:–Sectio'n{l) shall not be entertained uniess it is<\/p>\n
R""'-dacoonipanied by the original arbitration agreement or a<\/p>\n
indeed, Sub~seotion{l) would<\/p>\n
  -\u00abindicate that if a party so applies not later than when<\/p>\n
submitting his first statement on the substance of the<\/p>\n
dispute, refer the parties to arbitration. In the case on<\/p>\n
<2?\n<\/p>\n
.. if ‘ ‘ft  “W<\/p>\n
-\u00a7g_<\/p>\n
hand. we notice that the defendant has not made any<\/p>\n
application before filing a written statement that <\/p>\n
an arbitral clause and the matter requires to be  V’<\/p>\n
to arbitrator. It is only a defen.ce~ taken vvritteii<\/p>\n
statement. The defendant <\/p>\n
application under Section\u00bb   sand it<\/p>\n
Conciliation Act to oust the”  Civil
\nCourt. It was open insist before the
\nlearned trial  to out before
\nthe trial V the view that the
\nd\ufb01fe\ufb02    linlatter adjudicated before
\nthe arbitrator’.  once a party subjects<\/p>\n
itseifto the”=ju’risd’iction”‘”of the court and the decision<\/p>\n
“C-goes.. {against it cannot take up a contention in a<\/p>\n
supelricorf’\u00bbcourt__that it had no jurisdiction. Hence, we<\/p>\n
are  the  that it is not open for the defendants to<\/p>\n
 contention that the Civil Court does not have<\/p>\n
 _ \u00abjurisdiction to adjudicate the eviction proceedings.<\/p>\n
14. Having said so, we are of the View that the
\njudgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge<\/p>\n
does not call for interference on three points. Insofar as<\/p>\n
-19-<\/span><\/p>\n
damages are concerned, we are of the View that the
\nentire exercise has been done without. evidenee..an’d,_is<\/p>\n
liable to be interfered.\n<\/p>\n
I5. Learned counsel appearirig; for-:
\nsubmits that if the defendants larehto
\nschedule property within a re~a:s’onable”  they yvould
\nnot press their claim .for…_ <\/p>\n
16. Mr..Aravind~’i3esai  csossinsel appearing
\nfor the  thatlayears time may be
\ngranted” “‘deliyer”‘vaeant possession. It is
\nbroughtto the defendant is not carrying<\/p>\n
on any operatvions peftrol and diesel since last two<\/p>\n
  ;p_We…_are f’)’fVl.’A”1’\u20acv View that the time sought for by<\/p>\n
 l’ear’n:_ed.4″e.ounsel for the defendants certainly cannot<\/p>\n
be _\u00a7rant.ed’:’1–.l1aving regard to the fact that they have<\/p>\n
l<._stoppe"d_ their operation. Under the circumstances, we<\/p>\n
   the View that the defendant. is liable to quit and<\/p>\n
  deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property<\/p>\n
 on or before 31.3201 1. Hence, the following order: <\/p>\n
~2()v<\/p>\n
The appeal is accepted in part. T he judgment and
\ndecree insofar as it relates to awarding of of
\nRs.85.00 lakh is set. aside. The findings  H
\nlearned trial judge on other issues \u00ab.
\nand the claim of the <\/p>\n
mesne profits stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
The defendantVis.__graritedlg.:'tiriie._'till 3'1'.3".l2011 to
\nquit and deliver vacant:  to the<\/p>\n
following eondit.f.olf\\s:\n<\/p>\n
i)   “file an undertaking<\/p>\n
._ t;his”eo’u–rt-that it shall quit and deliver<\/p>\n
A    on or before 31.8.20} 1.\n<\/p>\n
‘jjj ._Thelljnd\u00abertaking shall include that they shall
\n  “drive the plaintiff in filing the execution
\ngll\ufb01rioeeedings. They shall also not create third<\/p>\n
T  party rights.\n<\/p>\n
 *iii) The defendants shall pay the agreed amount
\nfor use and occupation till 31.3.2011. This<\/p>\n
grant of time is subject to defendant filing an <\/p>\n
\/ ‘ 4’:  ‘V<\/p>\n
}’,.,4 3 K<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
MJIT<\/p>\n
.:..\n<\/p>\n
affidavit w1’t.hin 21 period of four weeks__f1’om
\nthe date of receipt of a copy of this <\/p>\n
Appeai Stands disposed of accordingly?’-._::.   %<\/p>\n
JUDGE
\n    sd\/..:\n<\/p>\n
 JUDGE<\/p>\n
8*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna -1I IN ‘I”HE I-IIGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS 15′?” DAY OF DECEMBER, PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJITII;’GLzi$IJA1;.: V AND _ _ _ THE HONBLE MRS. JI;sfIIcI\u00e9VI:=.,Ik’;NAG.ARA’I5aRAT: u R.F.A.No.’i’8..2;2\/2015′— 1 ‘ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3352,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010"},"wordCount":3352,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010","name":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-08T17:01:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-petroleum-vs-sri-p-h-krishna-raj-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs Sri P H Krishna Raj on 15 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}