{"id":154586,"date":"2007-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-30T05:35:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T00:05:00","slug":"p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/10\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1105 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2006\n\n\n1.P.Bency\n2.P.Benister Joseph Pravin\n3.P.Benister Francis Soudha\t...\tPetitioners\n\nVs\n\n\nMartin Mary\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against\nthe order dated 28.02.2006 in unnumbered petition in O.S.No.58 of 2005, on the\nfile of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram.\t\n\t\t\n\n!For Petitioners\t\t...\tMr.C.Godwin\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t\t...\tMr.T.Arul\n     \t\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe plaintiffs in O.S.No.58 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram<br \/>\nhave come forward with this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated<br \/>\n28.02.2006 made in unnumbered petition filed by the petitioners, rejecting the<br \/>\nplea of the petitioners to receive a promissory note in evidence. The respondent<br \/>\nherein is the defendant in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioners\/plaintiffs have filed the above suit for recovery of a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.1,00,000\/-, which is due under a promissory note dated 21.01.2003,<br \/>\nsaid to have been executed by the respondent\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. During the trial of the case, when P-W-1 was under examination, the<br \/>\ndisputed promissory note dated 22.01.2003, was sought to be marked in evidence<br \/>\non the side of the petitioners. Since it was opposed by the defendant stating<br \/>\nthat it is inadmissible, the petitioners have filed a petition (unnumbered)<br \/>\nbefore the Lower Court requesting the Court to admit the same in evidence. But,<br \/>\nthe respondent herein opposed the same by filing counter. Having considered the<br \/>\nsame, the learned Subordinate Judge, by means of the impugned order, has<br \/>\nrejected the petition, thereby refusing to admit the said promissory note in<br \/>\nevidence. Challenging the said order of the Learned Subordinate Judge, the<br \/>\npetitioners have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners\/plaintiffs as<br \/>\nwell as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Admittedly, the document, which is sought to be marked in evidence is a<br \/>\npromissory note. But, a reading of the said document would show that it is a<br \/>\npromissory note, payable otherwise than on demand. In respect of the said<br \/>\nconclusion arrived at by the Lower Court, there is no controversy between the<br \/>\nparties now. Since it is a promissory note, payable otherwise than on demand,<br \/>\nthe same shall fall within the ambit of clause (b) of Article 49 of Schedule I<br \/>\nto the Stamp Act. In this case, a perusal of the document would show that the<br \/>\nsame has not been sufficiently stamped as required under the said provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the document<br \/>\ncould be admitted in evidence, since the petitioners are prepared to pay deficit<br \/>\nstamp fee as well as penalty. He would further contend that the document may<br \/>\natleast be admitted for the limited purpose of using the same for collateral<br \/>\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that<br \/>\nthe document in question is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose and the<br \/>\nsame cannot be validated by paying deficit fee and penalty as envisaged in the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 35 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. I have considered the rival contentions. In Thenappa v.Andiyappa<br \/>\nreported in AIR 1971 MAD 290, a similar question was considered by a Division<br \/>\nBench of this Court, wherein by following the Judgement of a Full Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshiammal reported in [AIR 1938 MAD 785], the<br \/>\nDivision Bench has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Hence, we confirm the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that<br \/>\nEx-A-1, is a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and therefore,<br \/>\nfalls under clause (b) of Article 49 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. In view of<br \/>\nthe proviso to Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the document cannot be validated by<br \/>\npayment of penalty and the document will be inadmissible for any purpose. But,<br \/>\nthis does not conclude the matter, because the plaintiff will still be entitled<br \/>\nto fall back on the original cause of action, namely, the prior indebtedness of<br \/>\nthe defendant&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Very recently in <a href=\"\/doc\/252008\/\">Ameer vs. M\/s. Vivek Enterprises<\/a> reported in [2005(1)<br \/>\nMLJ 85], a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar<br \/>\nsituation in respect of a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand. The<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court has followed the earlier Division Bench Judgement<br \/>\nof this Court in Thenappa v.Andiyappa reported in [AIR 1971 MAD 290], wherein<br \/>\nalso the Division Bench of this Court has approved the law as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The impugned document is a promissory note on which amount is payable<br \/>\notherwise than on demand. Further, the learned Trial Judge has also rightly<br \/>\nfound that the Impugned Document is insufficiently stamped and cannot be<br \/>\nadmitted in evidence&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In another Judgement, a learned Single Judge of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1490353\/\">R.Ravindran vs. M.Rajamanickam<\/a> reported in 2006 (2) CTC 474 has held as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The plaint documents 1 and 2 are promissory notes payable otherwise than<br \/>\non demand and there is no proper stamp duty. In view of the proviso to Section<br \/>\n35 of the Stamp Act, those documents cannot be validated by payment of penalty<br \/>\nand the documents are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In yet another Judgement, another learned Single Judge of this Court<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/208273\/\">Kanhailan Chandak vs. R.Mohan<\/a> reported in 1980 2 MLJ 234 has held as<br \/>\nfollows;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;When once it is seen that a promissory note which has to be stamped in<br \/>\naccordance, with the provisions of the Stamp Act is not so stamped then the<br \/>\nSection 35 will be attracted and an insufficiently stamped promissory note will<br \/>\nbe inadmissible in evidence for any purpose and such a defect cannot be cured by<br \/>\na subsequent payment of the duty and the penalty thereon&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The law laid down in all the above cases squarely apply to the facts<br \/>\nof the present case and so, it has to be held that since the promissory note in<br \/>\nquestion is payable otherwise on demand requiring stamp as required under clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of Article 49 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act and since the required stamp<br \/>\nhas not been affixed, the said promissory note is inadmissible in evidence for<br \/>\nany purpose.  A plain reading of the proviso to clause 35 makes it very clear<br \/>\nthat a promissory note cannot be validated by paying deficit stamp fee and<br \/>\npenalty. In view of the above settled position of law, I have no hesitation to<br \/>\nhold that the Lower Court was right in rejecting the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails, and hence the same<br \/>\nis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nSub-Court, Padmanabhapuram.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/10\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1105 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2006 1.P.Bency 2.P.Benister Joseph Pravin 3.P.Benister Francis Soudha &#8230; Petitioners Vs Martin Mary &#8230; Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T00:05:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T00:05:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1027,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T00:05:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T00:05:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T00:05:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007"},"wordCount":1027,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007","name":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T00:05:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-bency-vs-martin-mary-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Bency vs Martin Mary on 4 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/154586","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=154586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}