{"id":175830,"date":"2011-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-26T16:01:56","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T10:31:56","slug":"commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/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\nTAXAP\/530\/2010\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\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 530 of 2010\n \n\n=================================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nWATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone 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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
1.\tRevenue
\nis in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.10.2009
\nraising following question for our consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
“Whether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
\norder passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of
\nRs.12,97,46,000\/- made on account of subsidy received from Govt. of
\nGujarat?”\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nquestion arises in following factual background:-\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThe
\nrespondent assessee is a statutory Corporation involved in the
\nactivity of water resource development. It implements various schemes
\nby digging tube wells, lift irrigation, laying down pipes,
\nsanctioning loans etc. to ensure that there is adequate and proper
\nwater supply to the people of the State.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tIn
\nthe year under consideration i.e. for the assessment year 1996-97 the
\nassessee received certain Government assistance in the form of
\nsubsidy to enable it to repay the loans taken from NABARD. The
\nRevenue was of the opinion that receipt was a revenue receipt and
\nshould, therefore, be taxed in the hands of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThe
\nissue reached Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment,
\nallowed the assessee’s appeal. The Tribunal noted the facts as
\nemerging on the record, namely, that the Government had released the
\nsubsidy to enable the assessee to repay the borrowing from NABARD. A
\ntripartite agreement was entered into by NABARD, the assessee and the
\nState Government. The Tribunal noted that NABARD had provided finance
\nto the assessee to enable the assessee to execute projects comprising
\nschemes for construction of deep tube wells, laying down of pipelines
\nand other allied works of the State Government. The State Government
\nundertook to give grants to the assessee to enable the assessee to
\nrepay such loans. Relevant Government resolutions and circulars
\nclearly stipulated that the grants should be utilized only for the
\npurpose for which they were given.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tIt
\nwas also not in dispute that such condition was fulfilled by the
\nassessee. There was sufficient evidence to establish that the loans
\nwere utilized for the purpose of construction of tube wells, for
\nlaying down pipelines etc. for irrigation projects.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tThe
\nTribunal also noted that the department objected to such payments by
\nthe Government only when subsidy was granted to the assessee to
\nenable it to pay the borrowing from NABARD. Whenever Government
\ngrants were made available directly to the assessee for meeting
\nsimilar costs, the department did not object to the same being
\ntreated as capital receipt.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn
\nview of the above factual findings, the Tribunal, relying on the
\ndecision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press
\nWorks Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax<\/a> reported in
\n[1997] 228 ITR 253(SC) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax
\nvs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.<\/a> reported in [2008] 306 ITR
\n392(SC) was of the opinion that the receipts cannot be treated as
\nrevenue receipts.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn
\nthe case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and others vs.
\nCommissioner of Income-Tax<\/a> (supra), the Apex Court  held and observed
\nthat if payments in the nature of subsidy from public funds are made
\nto an assessee to assist him in carrying on his trade or business,
\nthey are trade receipts. The character of the subsidy in the hands of
\nthe recipient, whether the revenue or capital, will have to be
\ndetermined, having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is
\ngiven. The source of the found is quite immaterial. However, if the
\npurpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a
\nproject, the monies must be treated as having been received for
\ncapital purposes. But if monies are given to the assessee for
\nassisting him in carrying out the business operations and the money
\nis given only after and conditional upon commencement of production,
\nsuch subsidies must be treated as assistance for the purpose of
\ntrade.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn
\nthe case on hands before the Apex Court the assessee could not
\nutilize the money for distribution as dividend to its shareholders.
\nHowever, the assessee was free to use the money in its business
\nentirely as it liked and was not obliged to spend money for a
\nparticular purpose. In this background the Apex Court held that the
\nsubsidies was of revenue nature and would be taxed in the hands of
\nthe  recipient.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\ndecision of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and others vs.
\nCommissioner of Income-Tax<\/a> (supra) was considered by the Apex Court
\nin the case of Commissioner of Income-tax  vs. Ponni Sugars and
\nChemicals Ltd.<\/a> (supra), wherein the assessee cooperative society
\nwhich was running sugar mills was granted subsidy by the Government
\nto be utilized only for repaying loans since it was economically  not
\nviable to run sugar factories and due to high finance costs,
\nfinancial institutions did not come forward to advance loans to
\nentrepreneurs. In that background, the Apex Court held that the main
\neligibility condition in the schemes was that the incentive had to be
\nutilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new
\nunits or for substantial expansion of existing units.  The subsidy
\nreceived by the assessee was not in the course of a trade but was of
\na capital nature. The Apex Court noted difference in facts in the
\ncase of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner
\nof Income-Tax<\/a> (supra), wherein the assessee could utilize the subsidy
\nthe way it liked for the purpose of the business.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nthe present case, we find that the subsidy came with a specific
\nrider. It had to be utilized for repayment of loans to NABARD. Such
\nloans were taken by the assessee for a specific purpose of
\nconstruction of tube wells, laying down of pipe lines and providing
\nlift irrigation system for providing  water for the people of the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe
\nare of the opinion, therefore that the Tribunal correctly held that
\nthe subsidy was not for the purpose of enabling the assessee to do
\nthe business better or more profitably but it was for the purpose of
\nrepaying loans utilized for acquiring capital assets. The assessee’s
\nmain object appears to be to carrying out such water schemes. In
\nfurtherance of such object, the assessee had constructed tube wells,
\nlaying down pipelines and providing lift irrigation system. It was
\nfor this purpose the assessee had taken loan from NABARD, which
\nthrough the subsidy received from the State Government was being
\nrepaid.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nview of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment of the
\nTribunal. The Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil
\nKureshi, J. )<\/p>\n
(Ms.\n<\/p>\n
Sonia Gokani, J.)<\/p>\n
sudhir<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/530\/2010 4\/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 530 of 2010 ================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR – Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD – […]<\/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-175830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 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\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-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=\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1114,\"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-revenue-on-4-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 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":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 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\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011"},"wordCount":1114,"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-revenue-on-4-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011","name":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T10:31:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 4 July, 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\/175830","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=175830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}