{"id":165887,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-23T06:13:12","modified_gmt":"2017-12-23T00:43:12","slug":"commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/108\/2009\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 108 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHYTAISUM\nMAGNETICS LIMITED - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Opponent(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 D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n
Vide
\n\torder dated 15.2.2010, this Court had issued notice for final
\n\tdisposal returnable on 2.3.2010.  Despite service of notice, there
\n\tis no appearance on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Admit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe following substantial question of law arises for determination :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether
\n\tthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in entertaining and
\n\tallowing Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for
\n\trecalling the order dated 22.6.2006 made by the Tribunal despite
\n\tthere being no mistake apparent on record?”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tAssessing Officer had framed assessment under section 143(3) of the
\n\tAct for assessment year 1997-98 determining the total income at
\n\tRs.3,85,35,410\/- as against the returned loss of Rs.24,69,17,246\/-.
\n\tBeing aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before
\n\tthe Commissioner (Appeals). The assessment order was challenged by
\n\tthe assessee on various grounds, including the ground relating to
\n\ttreating the return of income filed as invalid on the ground that
\n\tthe return was not accompanied with the tax audit report and
\n\taccounts as required under section 44AB of the Act; as well as the
\n\tground relating to setting off of the loss claimed in the return.
\n\tThe Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.6.2001 dismissed both
\n\tthe grounds of appeal. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the
\n\tmatter in second appeal before the Tribunal wherein the above
\n\treferred grounds were taken as grounds No.1 and 2. The Tribunal vide
\n\torder dated 22.6.2006, dismissed both the aforesaid grounds of
\n\tappeal.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequently,
\n\tthe assessee moved a miscellaneous application for recalling the
\n\torder dated 22.6.2006 made by the Tribunal on the ground that ground
\n\tNo.2 had not been disposed of by the Tribunal and that though
\n\tthe said ground had been specifically taken up before the
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) had also not
\n\tdisposed of the said ground.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTribunal, after considering submissions advanced on behalf of the
\n\tparties, found that ground No.2 had not been dealt with by it in its
\n\torder dated 22.6.2006 and held that the same was a mistake apparent
\n\ton record. The Tribunal, accordingly, vide the impugned order dated
\n\t11.04.2008 amended paragraph 5 of its order and substituted it by
\n\tthe following :\n<\/p>\n
“[5]\tThus,
\n\tGround No.1 stands dismissed. So far as Ground No.2 is concerned, we
\n\tfind that this ground has not been disposed of by the CIT (A) and
\n\taccordingly, we direct the CIT (A) to dispose of the ground relating
\n\tto not allowing of set off of carried forward losses, after giving
\n\tproper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee.”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant invited  attention
\n\tto the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the earlier
\n\torder dated 22.6.2006 made by the Tribunal, to submit that both, the
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had, at length,
\n\tconsidered the controversy raised vide ground No.2 and had dismissed
\n\tthe same on merits. It was, accordingly, urged that the Tribunal was
\n\tnot justified in holding that the said ground had not been dealt
\n\twith and as such, there was a mistake apparent on record in the
\n\torder of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tcan be seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the second
\n\tground raised before him was regarding set off of loss claimed in
\n\tthe return. The Commissioner (Appeals), in paragraphs No.2, 3 and 4
\n\tof his order, while dealing with the question regarding treating the
\n\treturn of income filed as invalid return on the ground that tax
\n\taudit report was not attached and the books of accounts were not
\n\taudited, has after appreciating the evidence on record, held that
\n\tthe Assessing Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting the books
\n\tof account and taking the loss shown in the return at Nil. The
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) has thereafter specifically observed that
\n\tground No.2 is regarding setting off of loss claimed in the return
\n\tand that the ground was already decided against the assessee in the
\n\tpreceding paragraph.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTribunal in its order dated 22.6.2006, has dealt with grounds No.1
\n\tand 2 raised before it.  In the concluding part of paragraph 4
\n\twherein the Tribunal has recorded its findings in relation to the
\n\tsaid issue, the Tribunal has categorically held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Although
\n\tthe proviso to section 139(9) empowers the assessing officer to
\n\tcondone the delay and treat the return as a valid return, but the
\n\tassessee in this case has not made an application before the
\n\tassessing officer for the extension of the time or even no such plea
\n\twas taken either before the CIT (Appeals) or before us, therefore,
\n\twe are of the view that the proviso to section 139(9) will not come
\n\tfor the rescue of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the
\n\toriginal return filed by the assessee on 28\/11\/97 was an invalid
\n\treturn. The return filed by the assessee u\/s 139(3) was invalid,
\n\ttherefore, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to carry
\n\tforward the loss as determined during the assessment year under
\n\tconsideration.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tit is apparent that the Tribunal, after detailed discussion in
\n\trelation to Ground No.1 and 2, which were related grounds, has held
\n\tthat the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss as
\n\tdetermined during the assessment under consideration. In the
\n\tcircumstances, it is apparent that the finding recorded by the
\n\tTribunal that Ground No.2 has not been dealt with by the Tribunal is
\n\tcontrary to the record and as such, the Tribunal was not justified
\n\tin holding that there was a mistake apparent on record in its
\n\tearlier order dated 22.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe light of the aforesaid, there being no mistake apparent in the
\n\torder dated 22.6.2006 made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not
\n\tjustified in entertaining and granting the miscellaneous application
\n\tmade by the assessee and modifying the order dated 22.6.2006 and as
\n\tsuch the impugned order dated  11.04.2008 made by the Tribunal
\n\tcannot be sustained. The question stands answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
\n\tdated 11.04.2008 made by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application
\n\tNo.229\/Ahd\/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
[D.A.MEHTA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/108\/2009 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 108 of 2009 ========================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant(s) Versus HYTAISUM MAGNETICS LIMITED – Opponent(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-165887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-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=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-23T00:43:12+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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-23T00:43:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1020,\"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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-23T00:43:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-23T00:43:12+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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-23T00:43:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":1020,"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\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-23T00:43:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vide-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Vide on 4 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/165887","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=165887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165887\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}