{"id":161905,"date":"2010-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-12T23:56:44","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T18:26:44","slug":"dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCOMP\/170\/2009\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 170 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 255 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of  India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit  is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDOTCAD\nPRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nADVANTAGE\nGLOBAL BPO PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nTS NANAVATI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS MOXA G THAKKER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nANVESH V VYAS for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\n\tboth these petitions are  filed  for an appropriate order of winding<br \/>\n\tup of one common respondent Company &#8211; ADVANTAGE GLOBAL BPO PRIVATE<br \/>\n\tLIMITED, both these petitions are disposed of by this common<br \/>\n\tjudgement and order. Company Petition No.170 of 2009 is filed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner  &#8211; DOTCAD PRIVATE<br \/>\n\tLIMITED &#8211;  under sec.433 read with sec.434 of the Companies Act,<br \/>\n\t1956 for an appropriate order of winding up of the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany &#8211;  ADVANTAGE GLOBAL BPO PRIVATE LIMITED. Similarly, Company<br \/>\n\tPetition No.255 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner<br \/>\n\t VISHWA OFFICE SYSTEM, a proprietorship concern under sec.433<br \/>\n\tread with sec.434 of the Companies Act, 1956  for an appropriate<br \/>\n\torder of winding up of the respondent Company &#8211; ADVANTAGE GLOBAL BPO<br \/>\n\tPVT.LTD.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\n\t of Company Petition No.170 of 2009 namely DOTCAD PRIVATE<br \/>\n\tLIMITED that the said petitioner<br \/>\n\tprovided Desktop Computers and Servers\/Peripherals to the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany for a total amount of Rs.53,65,621=00  and the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany paid part payment of Rs.28,65,620=00 and the balance amount<br \/>\n\tof Rs.25,00,001=00 still remained due and payable at the end of the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company. It is the further the case on behalf of the said<br \/>\n\tpetitioner  that towards the<br \/>\n\taforesaid dues of Rs. 25,00,001=00, the respondent Company issued<br \/>\n\tfour cheques amounting to Rs.24,21,871=00, however when the said<br \/>\n\tfour cheques were deposited in the Bank, all the four cheques had<br \/>\n\tdishonoured and  thereafter again fresh cheques were issued which<br \/>\n\twere again deposited, however, the same were again dishonoured and<br \/>\n\treturned by the bank with endorsement of  fund insufficient .<br \/>\n\tIt is further the case of the said petitioner<br \/>\n\t that thereafter the said petitioner<br \/>\n\t again issued statutory notice, however, the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany has not paid the amount of Rs. 25,00,001=00 to the said<br \/>\n\tpetitioner  and therefore,<br \/>\n\tthe said petitioner  has<br \/>\n\tpreferred Company Petition No.170 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\n\t of Company Petition No.255 of 2009 namely  VISHWA OFFICE<br \/>\n\tSYSTEM, that  an amount of Rs.24,84,943=00 is due and payable by the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company to the said petitioner<br \/>\n\t and despite several reminders and even after service of<br \/>\n\tstatutory notice, the said amount has not been paid and the cheques<br \/>\n\twhich were issued, have been dishonoured.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\n\trespective petitioners that the respondent Company has failed to<br \/>\n\tmake the payment of the amount due and payable to the respective<br \/>\n\tpetitioners   and as such the respondent Company is not in a<br \/>\n\tposition to pay the amount due and payable by the respondent Company<br \/>\n\tto the respective petitioners,<br \/>\n\tlooking to its financial condition. It is submitted that the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company is not a running Company and is not viable and<br \/>\n\thas lost its substratum. It is submitted that there are other<br \/>\n\tvarious creditors also. Therefore, it is requested to pass<br \/>\n\tappropriate order of winding up the respondent Company and appoint<br \/>\n\tthe Official Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAdmission<br \/>\n\tof the respective petitions have been advertised in local news paper<br \/>\n\tas per the orders passed by this Court. There is no reply filed by<br \/>\n\tthe respondent Company to the present petitions. The liability to<br \/>\n\tpay the amount due and payable to the petitioners   has not been<br \/>\n\tdenied and\/or disputed. The allegations that the respondent Company<br \/>\n\tis not in a position to pay the debt to the petitioner<br \/>\n\t  as well as other creditors is not disputed by the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company. Nothing has been  pointed out to show that the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company is  viable running Company and\/or its financial<br \/>\n\tposition is such that it can pay its debts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above, it appears that the respondent Company has lost<br \/>\n\tits substratum and is not in a position to pay its debt to its<br \/>\n\tcreditor and therefore, the respondent Company is required to be<br \/>\n\tordered to be wound up.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above, both the petitions succeed and the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany &#8211;  ADVANTAGE GLOBAL BPO PRIVATE LIMITED is hereby directed<br \/>\n\tand ordered to be wound up. The Official Liquidator  attached with<br \/>\n\tthis Court is hereby appointed as Official Liquidator   for the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company. The Official Liquidator  is hereby directed to<br \/>\n\ttake possession of the properties (movable and immovable) of the<br \/>\n\trespondent Company along with its Bank Accounts, cash, Account Books<br \/>\n\tetc. forthwith. The Official Liquidator  shall submit its report<br \/>\n\twithin a period of three months.  If required, he can take service<br \/>\n\tof the official valuer for the purpose of preparation of the<br \/>\n\tpossession note etc. In the facts<br \/>\n\tand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print COMP\/170\/2009 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY PETITION No. 170 of 2009 With COMPANY PETITION No. 255 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - 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\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T18:26:44+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T18:26:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":776,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T18:26:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 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":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - 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\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T18:26:44+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T18:26:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010"},"wordCount":776,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010","name":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T18:26:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dotcad-vs-advantage-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dotcad vs Advantage on 3 May, 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\/161905","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=161905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}