{"id":176172,"date":"2010-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-05T07:19:07","modified_gmt":"2017-09-05T01:49:07","slug":"nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 284 of 2010()\n\n\n1. NAGESH KAMATH, S\/O.BHASKARA KAMATH\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. M\/S.K.VASUDEVA KAMATH & COMPANY\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BEEPATHUMMA, W\/O.MOHAMMED ISMAIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ASYAMMA, W\/O.DR.AHAMAD MORGAL\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :26\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                  ----------------------------------------\n\n                         R.P.No.284 of 2010\n\n                                     in\n\n                          S.A.No.25 of 1996\n\n                   ---------------------------------------\n\n                Dated this 26th day of March, 2010\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Respondents in the second appeal have sought review of<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of this court dated 05-01-2010 on the ground,<\/p>\n
among other things that when a person makes available an interest<\/p>\n
which belonged to him into a partnership firm including himself, it does<\/p>\n
not involve any transfer and it is only that property of the individual is<\/p>\n
brought into the common stock of the partnership firm.           Learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate contends that this important aspect of the matter was<\/p>\n
not considered by this court while deciding the second appeal.<\/p>\n
Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions in<\/p>\n
P.J.Jacob Vs. T.J.Jacob (1977 KLT 224) and Amarnath Agarwalla<\/p>\n
Vs. Dhillon Transport Agency (2007(4) SCC 306.                   Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondents (in the review petition) would contend that<\/p>\n
said question was also considered by this court and it was held that so<\/p>\n
far as respondents are concerned, the partnership firm (petitioner<\/p>\n
No.2) of which the original lessee is said to have been a partner is a<\/p>\n
different legal entity unconnected with the lessee and hence<\/p>\n
petitioners are not entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
R.P.No.284 of 2010 in S.A.No.25 of 1996<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.    The case is that plaint A schedule property was let out to<\/p>\n
one Sarvothama Kamath by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents<\/p>\n
as per a registered lease deed dated 13-04-1951 for a period of 35<\/p>\n
years and reserving an annual rent of Rs.50\/-.        Respondents who<\/p>\n
inherited the suit property sought eviction of petitioners, a partnership<\/p>\n
firm and its partner on the expiry of the period of lease. The<\/p>\n
partnership firm and the partner (petitioners in the review petition)<\/p>\n
sought protection of section 106 of the Act. Courts below found in<\/p>\n
favour of petitioners and refused to order eviction. That judgment and<\/p>\n
decree were under challenge in the second appeal. In this court it was<\/p>\n
argued on behalf of the respondents that petitioners (respondents in<\/p>\n
the second appeal) could not seek protection of section 106 of the Act<\/p>\n
since it is not a case where the structures were put up by the lessee<\/p>\n
but by a partnership firm (petitioner No.2) which had nothing to do with<\/p>\n
the lease. This court held that the lease was in favour of Sarvothama<\/p>\n
Kamath as per registered lease deed and hence so far as the landlords<\/p>\n
are concerned lessee is the said Sarvothama Kamath. Petitioners had<\/p>\n
no case that the impugned constructions were made by the lessee or<\/p>\n
by the petitioners on behalf of the lessee. Instead, their contention<\/p>\n
was that Sarvothama Kamath obtained the lease for and on behalf of<\/p>\n
petitioner No.2, the partnership firm and that the said partnership firm<\/p>\n
put up the structures. This court held that there was no privity of<\/p>\n
contract between the landlord and petitioner No.2 and that<\/p>\n
R.P.No.284 of 2010 in S.A.No.25 of 1996<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
Sarvothama Kamath at the time of lease was or later became a partner<\/p>\n
in petitioner No.2 made no difference so far as contractual relationship<\/p>\n
between the landlord and Sarvothama Kamath was concerned. This<\/p>\n
court held that hence the only person who could claim protection of<\/p>\n
section 106 of the Act is Sarvothama Kamath. This court also held that<\/p>\n
being a partner of petitioner No.2., Sarvothama Kamath could have<\/p>\n
probably successfully resisted an attempt for his eviction on the<\/p>\n
ground of sublease but that did not enable petitioner No.2 to claim<\/p>\n
protection of section 106 of the Act. This court also considered the<\/p>\n
question whether petitioners could be treated as assignees of<\/p>\n
Sarvothama Kamath, the lessee invoking explanation to section 106 of<\/p>\n
the Act in view of Ext.B1, copy of registered assignment deed executed<\/p>\n
by the legal representatives of Sarvothama Kamath in favour of<\/p>\n
petitioner No.2. This court held that Ext.B1 is not an assignment of<\/p>\n
leasehold right of Sarvothama Kamath which devolved on his legal<\/p>\n
representatives consequent to his death and hence in that way also<\/p>\n
petitioners could not claim protection of section 106 of the Act. This<\/p>\n
court held from the evidence that as the structure was put up by<\/p>\n
petitioner No.2 which was neither the lessee nor assignee of the lessee<\/p>\n
it could not claim protection under section 106 of the Act. Now, the<\/p>\n
ground urged for review is that Sarvothama Kamath, the lessee had<\/p>\n
brought his leasehold right in the suit property into the partnership<\/p>\n
(petitioner No.2) of which he was a partner and hence that does not<\/p>\n
R.P.No.284 of 2010 in S.A.No.25 of 1996<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
amount to an assignment. It is for the above purpose that learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate had placed reliance on the decisions (surpa).<\/p>\n
Question considered in those decisions was whether a lessee who<\/p>\n
formed partnership with others could be evicted on the ground of<\/p>\n
sublease. It was held that it was not a case of transfer of exclusive<\/p>\n
possession of the demised premises in favour of the partnership firm in<\/p>\n
which lessee continued to be a partner and hence eviction cannot be<\/p>\n
ordered on the ground of sublease as it was not a case of lessee<\/p>\n
assigning his leasehold interest in favour of the partnership firm.<\/p>\n
      3.   In fact, the question now raised was considered by this<\/p>\n
court in paragraph 6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. This<\/p>\n
court opined that such a defense could have been raised by<\/p>\n
sarvothama kamath if his eviction was sought for on the ground of<\/p>\n
sublease but petitioners cannot seek protection of section 106 of the<\/p>\n
Act as they are neither the lessee nor assignees of the lessee and as<\/p>\n
the construction was made not by the lessee but by petitioner No.2<\/p>\n
who had no privity of contract with the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The decision of this court rest on the finding that to avail<\/p>\n
protection of section 106 of the Act, construction has to be made by<\/p>\n
the lessee, his legal representatives or assignee as the explanation to<\/p>\n
section 106(1) of the Act says whereas, in this case it is admitted that<\/p>\n
construction was not made by the lessee, his legal representative or<\/p>\n
assignee and there is no case of assignment of leasehold right in<\/p>\n
R.P.No.284 of 2010 in S.A.No.25 of 1996<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
favour of petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    A review is not a substitute for an appeal.        Even an<\/p>\n
erroneous decision on merit cannot be the subject matter of a review.<\/p>\n
A review is permitted when there is a mistake or error apparent on the<\/p>\n
face of record or when any of the other grounds mentioned in Order 47<\/p>\n
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) exist. No<\/p>\n
error can be said to be apparent on the face of record if it required a<\/p>\n
long drawn reasoning to establish it (See Kurian Varghese Vs. State<\/p>\n
of Kerala (1989 (2) KLJ 723)             and Delta foundations &<\/p>\n
Constructions Vs. K.S.C. Corporation (2003(1) KLT 626). “Error<\/p>\n
apparent on face of record” means an error which strikes one on mere<\/p>\n
looking at the record (See Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari<\/p>\n
Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455). I have gone through the judgment<\/p>\n
sought to be reviewed and the grounds urged in this petition. What is<\/p>\n
urged is virtually a rehearing of the appeal itself. But a review court<\/p>\n
cannot act as an appellate court.      I am satisfied that there is no<\/p>\n
mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other reason as<\/p>\n
provided under order 47 Rule 1 of the Code to justify a review.<\/p>\n
      This petition is therefore dismissed but without any order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    THOMAS P JOSEPH,
\n                                                          JUDGE
\nSbna\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 284 of 2010() 1. NAGESH KAMATH, S\/O.BHASKARA KAMATH … Petitioner 2. M\/S.K.VASUDEVA KAMATH & COMPANY Vs 1. BEEPATHUMMA, W\/O.MOHAMMED ISMAIL … Respondent 2. ASYAMMA, W\/O.DR.AHAMAD MORGAL For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) For Respondent : No 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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 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\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-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=\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-05T01:49:07+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T01:49:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1252,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T01:49:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 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":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 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\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-05T01:49:07+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T01:49:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010"},"wordCount":1252,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010","name":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T01:49:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagesh-kamath-vs-beepathumma-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagesh Kamath vs Beepathumma on 26 March, 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\/176172","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=176172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}