{"id":162938,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-06T21:41:24","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T16:11:24","slug":"vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7898\/2011\t 4\/ 4\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7898 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nVVF\nLTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nASST.PROVIDENT\nFUND COMMISSIONER & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nK M PATEL, LD SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARMESH D NANAVATY\nfor Petitioner \nRULE NOT\nRECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMS E.SHAILAJA for\nRespondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \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 RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tPresent
\npetition is filed by M\/s. V V F Ltd., through its authorized
\nsignatory Shri Bhavin L Malaviya, challenging the order passed by the
\nAssistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot dated 01\/05\/2007
\nwhereby the present petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
\nRs.9,78,970\/- and amount of Rs.4,21,001\/- as interest within fifteen
\ndays from the receipt of the order under Section 7A and 7Q of
\nEmployees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
1.1\t\tThe
\npetitioner filed an appeal being ATA No.431(5) of 2007 before the
\nEmployees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, who decided the appeal
\nby order dated 07\/03\/2011 and dismissed the same.  Thereafter, the
\nauthorities passed a recovery order dated 05\/04\/2011, a copy of which
\nis produced at Annexure – F.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tLearned
\nSenior Advocate, Mr.K M Patel appearing with Mr.H D Nanavati, for the
\npetitioner submitted that the order under Section 7A is passed
\nwithout issuing Notices to the concerned contractors though the case
\nof the petitioner – establishment was that the amount which is
\nalleged to have been shown as payment of overdue wages is in-fact the
\nactual wages paid to the workman. Learned Senior Advocate for the
\npetitioner submitted that the contractors did have their independent
\nProvident Fund Code and even on that ground the Notices were required
\nto be issued to those contractors. Learned Senior Advocate submitted
\nthat the issue which was involved in the matter – the
\nallegations about the payment of amount under the guise of overtime
\npayment which was alleged to be the actual wages paid to the workman
\ncould not have been decided in absence of hearing the concerned
\ncontractors and relevant record being produced by them.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tOn
\n05\/07\/2011, this Court issued Notice returnable on 25\/07\/2011 and
\ngranted ad-interim-relief.  On 26\/07\/2011 the Court issued Rule and
\nad-interim-relief granted earlier was ordered to continue till then.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tToday,
\nwhen the matter is taken up for consideration learned Senior Advocate
\nrequested that if the matter could be heard finally to which learned
\nAdvocate, Ms. E Shailaja has no objection and therefore the matter is
\ntaken up for consideration and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tHaving
\nheard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and having noticed
\nthe relevant discussion in the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
\nCommissioner, the Court is prima-facie of the opinion that the
\nAssistant Provident Fund Commissioner has not given required
\nattention to the contention raised by the petitioner –
\nestablishment.  Relevant part of the order impugned reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“….Further,
\nthe issue to be decided is whether the PF contribution is payable  on
\novertime paid by the three contractors M\/s. Vandana Enterpreises,
\nM\/s. National Associates, M\/s. National Corporate Services.
\nIn this regard, Section 2 (b) of the Act is relevant which clearly
\nexcludes overtime payment from the basic wages.  Hence, the
\nprovisions of the Act is relevant which clearly excludes overtime
\npayment from the basic wages.  Hence, the provisions of the Act are
\nquite clear that overtime is not basic wages accordingly it is not
\nliable for PF deduction as per the provisions of the Act.  However,
\n the real
\nissue here not not whether overtime is liable for PF deduction
\nbecause the Act clearly excludes overtime payment from basic waged as
\ndefined in Section 2 (b).  But whether overtime shown by contractors
\nwas actually overtime paid to employees or was merely an adjustment
\nof actual wages to evade PF liability.\n<\/p>\n
The establishment in this record has contended that breach of
\nFactories Act can not convert overtime payment into basic wages.
\nHowever, the close scrutiny of the salary \/ wages register of the
\ncontractor reveals that all employees are paid on daily basis and
\novertime paid to them is on hourly basis. Whereas the representative
\nof the establishment themselves has submitted that these contractor
\nemployees are working on piece rate basis.  Which makes it difficult
\nto understand that how employees engaged on piece rate basis are paid
\novertime on hourly basis.  Hence, the establishment’s statements are
\ncontradictory.  On the one hand, it is saying that contractor
\nemployees are working on piece rate basis on the other hand, it is
\nsaying that overtime is paid for extra hours of work done by contract
\nemployees….”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned
\nSenior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in absence of
\nhearing the contractors and the material available with them, the
\nAssistant Provident Fund Commissioner could not have passed the order
\nimpugned. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that to that extent the
\norder is required to be quashed and set aside as without hearing the
\ncontractors and taking into consideration the material available with
\nthem, no adjudication \/ order could have been passed. Learned Senior
\nAdvocate submitted that the appellate authority has also erred in not
\ntaking into consideration the aforesaid contention raised by the
\npetitioner – establishment.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\t\tLearned
\nSenior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the case of the
\npetitioner-establishment is not appreciated in its true perspective.
\nLearned Senior Advocate submitted that case of the petitioner was
\nthat concerned contractors were paid on piece rate basis.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe
\nCourt is of the opinion that submission made by learned Senior
\nAdvocate requires to be accepted and the same are accordingly
\naccepted.  The order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
\nCommissioner is quashed and consequently the order passed by the
\nappellate Tribunal is also quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tAt
\nthe request of learned Advocate, Ms.E Shailaja, it is clarified that
\nquashing of the order does not take away the authority against three
\nconcerned contractors of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of
\ntaking up the matter de novo in accordance with law and
\ncalling upon the contractors for explaining the controversy about the
\novertime paid to the workman.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tRule
\nis made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(RAVI
\nR TRIPATHI, J.)<\/p>\n
sompura<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7898\/2011 4\/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7898 of 2011 ========================================================= VVF LTD – Petitioner(s) Versus ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 1 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : […]<\/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-162938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-06T16:11:24+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\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T16:11:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":969,\"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\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T16:11:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-06T16:11:24+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\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T16:11:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":969,"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\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011","name":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T16:11:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vvf-vs-asst-provident-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vvf vs Asst.Provident on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/162938","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=162938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}