{"id":172729,"date":"2006-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006"},"modified":"2016-07-31T10:11:21","modified_gmt":"2016-07-31T04:41:21","slug":"dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated : 22.08.2006\n\nCoram :\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nWrit Petition Nos.17247 of 1998 and 4477 of 2001\n\n\n\nW.P.No.17247 of 1998:\n\nDunlop India Limited \nAmbattur\nChennai  600 053.\t\t\t      Petitioner \n\nvs.\n\n1.The Tahsildar\nAmbattur\nChennai  600 053\n\n2.The Principal Commissioner\n(Urban Land Tax)\nEzhilagam\nChennai  600 005\n\n3.Village Administrative Officer\n18, Ambattur village\nAmbattur\nChennai  600 053. \t\t\t\tRespondents\n\n\n\nW.P.No.4477 of 2001:\n\nDunlop India Limited \nM.T.H.Road\nAmbattur\nChennai  600 053. \t\t\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar\nAmbattur Taluk, Ambattur\nChennai  600 053\n\n2.The Village Administrative Officer\n18, Ambattur village, Ambattur Taluk\nAmbattur, Chennai  600 053.\t\t\tRespondents.\n\n  \n\tWrit petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein. \n \n\tFor Petitioners\t:\tMr.M.Vijayan for \n\t\t\t\tM\/s.King &amp; Patridge\n\n\tFor Respondent \t:\tMr.S.Rajasekar,G.A.\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe writ petition in W.P.No.17247 of 1998 is filed  seeking for the  relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in R.C.Pd1 No.4\/98\/A4 dated 8.9.1998, quash the same and forbear the respondents from initiating distress proceedings against the petitioner company declared as Sick Industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The writ petition in W.P.No.4477 of 2001 is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus  to call for the records of the first respondent, culminating to the impugned distraint order dated 2.2.2001 initiating distress recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs.22,94,080\/- towards the Urban Land tax for the period from fasli 1405 to fasli 1410, quash the same and direct the respondents, to forbear from initiating distress proceedings against the petitioner company declared as Sick Industry by the BIFR.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The petitioner is a company assessed to urban land tax by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Ambattur dated 8.9.1998 for a sum of Rs.1,38,816\/- in respect of fasli 1407 and for a sum of Rs.3,38,816\/- for the fasli year 1408 i.e., Rs.4,77,632\/- in total and by order dated 2.2.2001, the Zonal Deputy  Tahisldar, Ambattur Taluk initiated distraint revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,94,080\/- in respect of the faslies 1405 to 1410 i.e., including the above said amount of Rs.4,77,632\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It is the case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions that in as much as  the petitioner Company was declared as a sick industry by the BIFR, New Delhi by order dated 7.7.1998 under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;), wherein the Government of Tamil Nadu is also a party and the said proceedings are now pending before the BIFR, the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated in view of Section 22 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It is an admitted case of either side that the BIFR formulated a scheme for the rehabilitation of the petitioner Company and the same is under implementation and the petitioner company is reviving gradually.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Whether the respondent State Government can recover the urban land tax from the petitioner without obtaining prior permission from the BIFR, when the sanctioned scheme is under implementation under Section 22 of the Act, is the question involved in these writ petitions. The question is no more res integra as the Supreme Court in the case of THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ANTOEHR VS. SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LIMITED AND OTHERS  reported in AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1017, while considering the scope of Section 22 of the Act, has held that  it might be against the  principles of equity if the creditors are not allowed to recover their dues from the company, but such creditors may approach the Board for permission to proceed against the company for the recovery of their dues\/outstandings\/overdues or arrears by whatever name it is called. The Board at its discretion may accord its approval for proceeding against the company. If the approval is not granted, the remedy is not extinguished. It is only postponed. Sub-section (5) of Section 22 provides for exclusion of the period during which the remedy is suspended while computing the period of limitation for recovering the dues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the case of  TATA DAVY LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 6 SCC 669,  has also re-affirmed  the above judgment of the Supreme Court. Hence, the demand, which is impugned in these writ petitions, cannot be allowed to be proceeded further  without the prior permission of the BIFR for recovery of the amount from the petitioner company for which a sanctioned scheme is under implementation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Tahsildar<br \/>\nAmbattur<br \/>\nChennai  600 053<\/p>\n<p>2.The Principal Commissioner<br \/>\n(Urban Land Tax)<br \/>\nEzhilagam<br \/>\nChennai  600 005<\/p>\n<p>3.Village Administrative Officer<br \/>\n18, Ambattur village<br \/>\nAmbattur<br \/>\nChennai  600 053.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar<br \/>\nAmbattur Taluk, Ambattur<br \/>\nChennai  600 053<\/p>\n<p>5.The Village Administrative Officer<br \/>\n18, Ambattur village, Ambattur Taluk<br \/>\nAmbattur, Chennai  600 053.\n<\/p>\n<p>[PRV]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.08.2006 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN Writ Petition Nos.17247 of 1998 and 4477 of 2001 W.P.No.17247 of 1998: Dunlop India Limited Ambattur Chennai 600 053. Petitioner vs. 1.The Tahsildar Ambattur [&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-172729","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>Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - 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\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-31T04:41:21+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-31T04:41:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":687,\"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\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-31T04:41:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - 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\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-31T04:41:21+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-31T04:41:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006"},"wordCount":687,"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\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006","name":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-31T04:41:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dunlop-india-limited-vs-the-tahsildar-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dunlop India Limited vs The Tahsildar on 22 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/172729","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=172729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}