{"id":17972,"date":"2011-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-25T11:09:07","modified_gmt":"2018-11-25T05:39:07","slug":"ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                         1\n\n\n\n                                                                                 Reportable\n\n\n                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5820 OF 2011\n\n                      [Arising out of SLP [C] No.24484\/2010]\n\n\n\n\nM\/s. SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd.                                         ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nM\/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.                                       ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
        Leave granted. Heard.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The appellant filed an application under section 11 of the Arbitration <\/p>\n
& Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act’ for short) for appointment of an arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
The averments made in the said application in brief were as under :\n<\/p>\n
2.1)    On   7.10.2006  the   appellant     requested     the    respondent   to  grant       a <\/p>\n
long   term   lease   in   respect   of   two   Tea   estates   (Chandmari   Tea   Estate   and <\/p>\n
                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Burahapahar   Tea   Estate).   A   lease   deed   dated   21.12.2006   was   executed <\/p>\n
between   the   respondent   and   appellant   under   which   respondent   granted   a <\/p>\n
lease to the appellant for a term of 30 years in regard to the said two Tea <\/p>\n
estates with all appurtenances. Clause 35 of the said lease deed provided for <\/p>\n
settlement of disputes between the parties by arbitration. As the estates were <\/p>\n
hypothecated   to   United   Bank   of   India,   on   27.12.2006,   the   respondent <\/p>\n
requested   the  said  bank   for  issue  of a   no  objection   certificate  for   entering <\/p>\n
into a long term lease. The Bank sent a reply dated 17.7.2007, stating that it <\/p>\n
would   issue   a   no   objection   certificate   for   the   lease,   if   the   entire   balance <\/p>\n
amount due to it was deposited by 14.8.2007.\n<\/p>\n
2.2)    Prior   to   the   execution   of   the   said   lease   deed,   on   29.11.2006   the <\/p>\n
respondent   had   offered   to   sell   the   two   Tea   estates   to   the   appellant   for   a <\/p>\n
consideration of Rupees four crores. The appellant agreed to purchase them <\/p>\n
subject to detailed verification. The appellant wrote a letter dated 27.6.2007 <\/p>\n
to the respondent agreeing to purchase the said two Tea estates.\n<\/p>\n
2.3)    The   appellant   invested   huge   sums   of   money   for   improving   the   tea <\/p>\n
estates in the expectation that it would either be purchasing the said estates <\/p>\n
or have a lease for 30 years. The respondent however abruptly and illegally <\/p>\n
evicted the appellant from the two estates and took over their management in <\/p>\n
                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
January 2008. The appellant thereafter wrote a letter dated 28.3.2008 to the <\/p>\n
respondent expressing its willingness to purchase the said two estates for a <\/p>\n
mutually agreed upon consideration and also discharge the liability towards <\/p>\n
the bank.\n<\/p>\n
2.4)     The   appellant   issued   a   notice   dated   5.5.2008   calling   upon   the <\/p>\n
respondent   to   refer   the   matter   to   arbitration   under   section   35   of   the   lease <\/p>\n
deed. The respondent failed to comply. According to appellant the dispute <\/p>\n
between the parties related to the claim of the appellant that the respondent <\/p>\n
should   either   sell   the   estates   to   the   appellant,   or   permit   the   appellant   to <\/p>\n
continue in occupation of the estates for 30 years as lessees or reimburse the <\/p>\n
amounts   invested   by   it   in   the   two   estates   and   the   payments   made   to   the <\/p>\n
Bank.\n<\/p>\n
3.       The   respondents   opposed   the   said   application.   The   respondents <\/p>\n
contended that the unregistered lease deed dated 21.12.2006 for thirty years <\/p>\n
was invalid, unenforceable and not binding upon the parties, having regard <\/p>\n
to   section   107   of   Transfer   of   Property   Act   1882   (`TP   Act’   for   short)   and <\/p>\n
section 17 and section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (`Registration Act’ <\/p>\n
for   short);   that   the   said   lease   deed   was   also   not   duly   stamped   and   was <\/p>\n
therefore invalid, unenforceable and not binding, having regard to section 35 <\/p>\n
                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
of  Indian   Stamp Act,   1899;  that  clause  35  providing   for  arbitration,  being <\/p>\n
part   of   the   said   lease   deed,   was   also   invalid   and   unenforceable.   The <\/p>\n
respondent   denied   that   they   had   agreed   to   sell   the   two   tea   estates   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent   for   a   consideration   of   Rupees   four   crores.   The   appellant   also <\/p>\n
denied   that   the   respondent   had   invested   any   amount   in   the   tea   estates.   It <\/p>\n
contended that as the lease deed itself was invalid, the appellant could not <\/p>\n
claim appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration agreement forming <\/p>\n
part of the said deed.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The   learned   Chief   Justice   of   Guwahati   High   Court   dismissed   the <\/p>\n
appellant’s application by order dated 28.5.2010. He held that the lease deed <\/p>\n
was  compulsorily  registrable   under  section  17  of  the  Registration  Act   and <\/p>\n
section 106 of the TP Act; and as the lease deed was not registered, no term <\/p>\n
in   the  said   lease   deed   could  be   relied   upon   for  any   purpose   and  therefore <\/p>\n
clause 35 could not be relied upon for seeking reference to arbitration. The <\/p>\n
High Court also held that the arbitration agreement contained in clause 35 <\/p>\n
could not be termed as a collateral transaction, and therefore, the proviso to <\/p>\n
section 49 of the Registration Act would not assist the appellant. The said <\/p>\n
order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
5.       On   the   contentions   urged   the   following   questions   arise   for <\/p>\n
consideration :\n<\/p>\n
(i)      Whether   an   arbitration   agreement   contained   in   an   unregistered   (but <\/p>\n
compulsorily registrable) instrument is valid and enforceable?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     Whether an arbitration agreement in an unregistered instrument which <\/p>\n
is not duly stamped, is valid and enforceable?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Whether there is an arbitration agreement between the appellant and <\/p>\n
respondent and whether an Arbitrator should be appointed?\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (i)<\/p>\n
6.       Section   17(1)(d)   of   Registration   Act   and   section   107   of   TP   Act <\/p>\n
provides   that   leases   of   immovable   property   from   year   to   year,   or   for   any <\/p>\n
term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a <\/p>\n
registered instrument. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, sets out the <\/p>\n
effect  of non-registration  of documents required to be registered.  The  said <\/p>\n
section is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
         “49.Effect   of   non-registration   of   documents   required   to   be <\/p>\n
         Registered.- No document required by section 17 or by any provision of <\/p>\n
         the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall–<\/p>\n
         (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (b) confer any power to adopt, or<\/p>\n
                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or <\/p>\n
       conferring such power,<\/p>\n
       unless it has been registered:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and <\/p>\n
       required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to <\/p>\n
       be   registered   may   be   received   as   evidence   of   a   contract   in   a   suit   for <\/p>\n
       specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 <\/p>\n
       of   1877)   as   evidence   of   any   collateral   transaction   not   required   to   be <\/p>\n
       effected by registered instrument.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 49 makes it clear that a document which is compulsorily registrable, <\/p>\n
if not registered, will not affect the immovable property comprised therein in <\/p>\n
any   manner.   It   will   also   not   be   received   as   evidence   of   any   transaction <\/p>\n
affecting such property, except for two limited purposes. First is as evidence <\/p>\n
of a contract in a suit for specific performance. Second is as  evidence of any <\/p>\n
collateral   transaction   which   by   itself   is   not   required   to   be   effected   by <\/p>\n
registered instrument. A collateral transaction is not the transaction affecting <\/p>\n
the   immovable   property,   but   a  transaction   which   is   incidentally   connected <\/p>\n
with that transaction. The question is whether a provision for arbitration in <\/p>\n
an unregistered document (which is compulsorily registrable) is a collateral <\/p>\n
transaction, in respect of which such unregistered document can be received <\/p>\n
as evidence under the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
7.     When   a   contract   contains   an   arbitration   agreement,   it   is   a   collateral <\/p>\n
term relating to the resolution of disputes, unrelated to the performance of <\/p>\n
the contract. It is as if two contracts — one in regard to the substantive terms <\/p>\n
of the main contract and the other relating to resolution of disputes — had <\/p>\n
been rolled into one, for purposes of convenience. An arbitration  clause is <\/p>\n
therefore an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract or the <\/p>\n
instrument. Resultantly, even if the contract or its performance is terminated <\/p>\n
or   comes   to   an   end   on   account   of   repudiation,   frustration   or   breach   of <\/p>\n
contract,   the   arbitration   agreement   would   survive   for   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
resolution   of   disputes   arising   under   or   in   connection   with   the   contract.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, when an instrument or deed of transfer (or a document affecting <\/p>\n
immovable property) contains an arbitration agreement, it is a collateral term <\/p>\n
relating   to   resolution   of   disputes,   unrelated   to   the  transfer  or   transaction <\/p>\n
affecting the immovable property. It is as if two documents – one affecting <\/p>\n
the   immovable   property   requiring   registration   and   the   other   relating   to <\/p>\n
resolution of disputes which is not compulsorily registrable – are rolled into <\/p>\n
a   single   instrument.   Therefore,   even   if   a   deed   of   transfer   of   immovable <\/p>\n
property is challenged as not valid or enforceable, the arbitration agreement <\/p>\n
would   remain   unaffected   for   the   purpose   of   resolution   of   disputes   arising <\/p>\n
with   reference   to   the   deed   of   transfer.   These   principles   have   now   found <\/p>\n
                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory recognition in sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Arbitration and <\/p>\n
Conciliation Act 1996 (`Act’ for short) which is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
       “16.  Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.  – (1) <\/p>\n
       The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on <\/p>\n
       any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration <\/p>\n
       agreement, and for that purpose,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as <\/p>\n
       an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall <\/p>\n
       not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
8.     But   where   the   contract   or   instrument   is   voidable   at   the   option   of   a <\/p>\n
party (as for example under section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872), the <\/p>\n
invalidity that attaches itself to the main agreement may also attach itself to <\/p>\n
the   arbitration   agreement,   if   the   reasons   which   make   the   main   agreement <\/p>\n
voidable, exist  in relation  to the  making of the arbitration  agreement also.\n<\/p>\n
For example, if a person is made to sign an agreement to sell his property <\/p>\n
under threat of physical harm or threat to life, and the said person repudiates <\/p>\n
the   agreement   on   that   ground,   not   only   the   agreement   for   sale,   but   any <\/p>\n
arbitration agreement therein will not be binding.\n<\/p>\n
9.     An   arbitration   agreement   does   not   require   registration   under   the <\/p>\n
Registration  Act. Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or <\/p>\n
instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, <\/p>\n
                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
which is independent of the main contract or instrument.   Therefore having <\/p>\n
regard   to   the   proviso   to   section   49   of   Registration   Act   read   with   section <\/p>\n
16(1)(a)   of   the   Act,   an   arbitration   agreement   in   an   unregistered   but <\/p>\n
compulsorily registrable document can be acted upon and enforced for the <\/p>\n
purpose of dispute resolution by arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (ii)<\/p>\n
10.     What if an arbitration agreement is contained in an unregistered (but <\/p>\n
compulsorily registrable) instrument which is not duly stamped? To find an <\/p>\n
answer, it may be necessary to refer to the provisions of the Indian Stamp <\/p>\n
Act, 1899 (`Stamp Act’ for short). Section 33  of  the  Stamp   Act    relates <\/p>\n
to examination and impounding of instruments. The relevant portion thereof <\/p>\n
is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
        “33.Examination   and   impounding   of   instruments.-(1)   Every   person <\/p>\n
        having   by   law   or   consent   of   parties   authority   to   receive   evidence,   and <\/p>\n
        every person in charge of a pubic office, except an officer of police, before <\/p>\n
        whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced <\/p>\n
        or comes  in the performance  of his functions, shall,  if it appears to him <\/p>\n
        that such instrument is not dull stamped, impound the same.<\/p>\n
        (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so <\/p>\n
        chargeable   and   so   produced   or   coming   before   him   in   order   to   ascertain <\/p>\n
        whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required <\/p>\n
        by the law in force in   India when such instrument was executed or first <\/p>\n
        executed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n        x x x x ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section   35   of   Stamp   Act   provides   that   instruments   not   duly   stamped   is <\/p>\n
inadmissible in evidence and cannot be acted upon. The relevant portion of <\/p>\n
the said section is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
        “35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. — No <\/p>\n
        instrument   chargeable   with   duty   shall   be   admitted   in   evidence   for   any <\/p>\n
        purpose   by  any  person   having   by  law   or  consent   of   parties   authority   to <\/p>\n
        receive   evidence,   or   shall   be   acted   upon,   registered   or   authenticated   by <\/p>\n
        any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly <\/p>\n
        stamped :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            Provided that–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 (a)   any   such   instrument   shall   be   admitted   in   evidence   on <\/p>\n
                 payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, <\/p>\n
                 in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the <\/p>\n
                 amount   required   to   make   up   such   duty,   together   with   a <\/p>\n
                 penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the <\/p>\n
                 proper   duty   or   deficient   portion   thereof   exceeds   five <\/p>\n
                 rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 x x x x x<\/p>\n
Having regard to section 35 of Stamp Act, unless the stamp duty and penalty <\/p>\n
due   in   respect   of   the   instrument   is   paid,   the   court   cannot   act   upon   the <\/p>\n
instrument,  which  means   that  it  cannot   act   upon  the   arbitration   agreement <\/p>\n
also which is part of the instrument. Section 35 of Stamp Act is distinct and <\/p>\n
different   from   section   49   of   Registration   Act   in   regard   to   an   unregistered <\/p>\n
document.   Section   35   of   Stamp   Act,   does   not   contain   a   proviso   like   to <\/p>\n
section 49 of Registration Act enabling the instrument to be used to establish <\/p>\n
a collateral transaction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.     The   scheme   for   appointment   of   arbitrators   by   the   Chief   Justice   of <\/p>\n
Guwahati High Court 1996 requires an application under section 11 of the <\/p>\n
Act   to   be   accompanied   by   the   original   arbitration   agreement   or   a   duly <\/p>\n
certified   copy   thereof.   In   fact,   such   a   requirement   is   found   in   the <\/p>\n
scheme\/rules of almost all the High Courts. If what is produced is a certified <\/p>\n
copy of the agreement\/contract\/instrument containing the arbitration clause, <\/p>\n
it should disclose the stamp duty that has been paid on the original. Section <\/p>\n
33 casts a duty upon every court, that is a person having by law authority to <\/p>\n
receive evidence (as also every arbitrator who is a person having by consent <\/p>\n
of   parties,   authority   to   receive   evidence)   before   whom   an   unregistered <\/p>\n
instrument chargeable with duty is produced, to examine the instrument in <\/p>\n
order   to   ascertain   whether   it   is   duly   stamped.   If   the   court   comes   to   the <\/p>\n
conclusion   that   the   instrument  is   not   duly   stamped,   it   has   to   impound   the <\/p>\n
document and   deal  with  it  as  per  section   38  of the  Stamp Act.  Therefore, <\/p>\n
when a lease deed or any other instrument is relied upon as contending the <\/p>\n
arbitration   agreement,   the   court   should   consider   at   the   outset,   whether   an <\/p>\n
objection  in that behalf is raised or not, whether  the document is properly <\/p>\n
stamped.   If   it   comes   to   the   conclusion   that   it   is   not   properly   stamped,   it <\/p>\n
should be impounded and dealt with in the manner specified in section 38 of <\/p>\n
Stamp  Act.   The   court   cannot   act   upon   such   a   document   or   the   arbitration <\/p>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
clause therein. But if the deficit duty and penalty is paid in the manner set <\/p>\n
out in section 35 or section 40 of the Stamp Act, the document can be acted <\/p>\n
upon or admitted in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
12.      We   may   therefore   sum   up   the   procedure   to   be   adopted   where   the <\/p>\n
arbitration   clause   is   contained   in   a   document   which   is   not   registered   (but <\/p>\n
compulsorily registrable) and which is not duly stamped :\n<\/p>\n
(i)      The   court   should,   before   admitting   any   document   into   evidence   or <\/p>\n
acting   upon   such   document,   examine   whether   the   instrument\/document   is <\/p>\n
duly   stamped   and   whether   it   is   an   instrument   which   is   compulsorily <\/p>\n
registrable.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     If the document is found to be not duly stamped, Section 35 of Stamp <\/p>\n
Act   bars   the   said   document   being   acted   upon.   Consequently,   even   the <\/p>\n
arbitration   clause   therein   cannot   be   acted   upon.   The   court   should   then <\/p>\n
proceed  to impound  the document  under section  33  of  the Stamp  Act and <\/p>\n
follow the procedure under section 35 and 38 of the Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    If the document is found to be duly stamped, or if the deficit stamp <\/p>\n
duty and penalty is paid, either before the Court or before the Collector (as <\/p>\n
contemplated   in   section   35   or   40   of   the   Stamp   Act),   and   the   defect   with <\/p>\n
reference to deficit stamp is cured, the court may treat the document as duly <\/p>\n
stamped.\n<\/p>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
(iv)    Once   the   document   is   found   to   be   duly   stamped,   the   court   shall <\/p>\n
proceed to consider whether the document is compulsorily registrable. If the <\/p>\n
document is found to be not compulsorily registrable, the court can act upon <\/p>\n
the arbitration agreement, without any impediment.\n<\/p>\n
(v)     If   the   document   is   not   registered,   but   is   compulsorily   registrable, <\/p>\n
having   regard   to   section   16(1)(a)   of   the   Act,   the   court   can   de-link   the <\/p>\n
arbitration agreement from the main document, as an agreement independent <\/p>\n
of the other terms of the document, even if the document itself cannot in any <\/p>\n
way affect the property or cannot be received as evidence of any transaction <\/p>\n
affecting such property. The only exception is where the respondent in the <\/p>\n
application   demonstrates   that   the   arbitration   agreement   is   also   void   and <\/p>\n
unenforceable, as pointed out in para 8 above. If the respondent raises any <\/p>\n
objection that the arbitration agreement was invalid, the court will consider <\/p>\n
the said objection before proceeding to appoint an arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)    Where the document is compulsorily registrable, but is not registered, <\/p>\n
but the arbitration agreement is valid and separable, what is required to be <\/p>\n
borne in mind is that the Arbitrator appointed in such a matter cannot rely <\/p>\n
upon   the   unregistered   instrument   except   for   two   purposes,   that   is   (a)   as <\/p>\n
evidence of contract in a claim for specific performance and (b) as evidence <\/p>\n
of any collateral transaction which does not require registration.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (iii)<\/p>\n
13.     Where a lease deed is for a term of thirty years and is unregistered, the <\/p>\n
terms   of  such   a   deed   cannot   be   relied   upon   to   claim  or   enforce   any   right <\/p>\n
                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
under   or   in   respect   of   such   lease.   It   can   be   relied   upon   for   the   limited <\/p>\n
purposes of showing that the possession of the lessee is lawful possession or <\/p>\n
as evidence of some collateral transaction. Even if an arbitrator is appointed, <\/p>\n
he   cannot   rely   upon   or   enforce   any   term   of   the   unregistered   lease   deed.\n<\/p>\n
Where   the   arbitration   agreement   is   not   wide   and   does   not   provide   for <\/p>\n
arbitration   in   regard   to   all   and   whatsoever   disputes,   but   provides   only   for <\/p>\n
settlement of disputes and differences  arising in relation to the lease deed, <\/p>\n
the   arbitration   clause   though   available   in   theory   is   of   little   practical <\/p>\n
assistance, as it cannot be used for deciding any dispute or difference with <\/p>\n
reference to the unregistered deed.\n<\/p>\n
14.     In this case, clause 35 of the lease deed reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “That any dispute or difference arising between the parties in relation to or <\/p>\n
        in any manner touching upon this deed shall be settled by Arbitration in <\/p>\n
        accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act, <\/p>\n
        1996   which   shall   be   final   and   binding   on   the   parties   hereto.   The <\/p>\n
        Government   law   will   be   Indian.   The   venue   of   Arbitration   shall   be   at <\/p>\n
        Assam and Court at Assam alone shall have jurisdiction for disputes and <\/p>\n
        litigations arising between the lessor\/first party and the lessee\/second party <\/p>\n
        in context with the above mentioned scheduled property.”  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Having   regard   to   the   limited   scope   of   the   said   arbitration   agreement <\/p>\n
(restricting it to disputes in relation to or in any manner touching upon the <\/p>\n
lease   deed),   the   arbitrator   will   have   no   jurisdiction   to   decide   any   dispute <\/p>\n
which   does   not   relate   to   the   lease   deed.   Though   the   Arbitrator   will   have <\/p>\n
                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction to decide any dispute touching upon or relating to the lease deed, <\/p>\n
as   the   lease   deed   is   unregistered,   the   arbitration   will   virtually   be   a   non-\n<\/p>\n
starter.   A   party   under   such   a   deed   may   have   the   luxury   of   having   an <\/p>\n
arbitrator appointed, but little else. Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n
15.     Before an Arbitrator can be appointed under section 11 of the Act, the <\/p>\n
applicant   should   satisfy   the   learned   Chief   Justice   or  his   designate   that  the <\/p>\n
arbitration   agreement   is   available   in   regard   to   the   contract\/document   in <\/p>\n
regard to which the dispute has arisen. For example if the parties had entered <\/p>\n
into   two   agreements   and   arbitration   clause   is   found   only   in   the   first <\/p>\n
agreement and not in the second agreement, necessarily an arbitrator can be <\/p>\n
appointed only in regard to disputes relating to the first agreement and not in <\/p>\n
regard to any dispute relating to the second agreement. This court in  Yogi  <\/p>\n
Agarwal vs. Inspiration Clothes & U<\/a> – (2009) 1 SCC 372 held :\n<\/p>\n
        “When Sections 7 and 8 of the Act refer to the existence of an arbitration <\/p>\n
        agreement   in   regard   to   the   current   dispute   between   the   parties,   they <\/p>\n
        necessarily   refer   to   an   arbitration   agreement   in   regard   to   the   current <\/p>\n
        dispute   between   the   parties   or   the   subject-matter   of   the   suit.   It   is <\/p>\n
        fundamental   that   a   provision   for   arbitration,   to   constitute   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
        agreement for the purposes of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, should satisfy <\/p>\n
        two   conditions.   Firstly,   it   should   be   between   the   parties   to   the   dispute. <\/p>\n
        Secondly, it should relate to or be applicable to the dispute.” <\/p>\n
                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
 16.    In this case, the appellant seeks arbitration in regard to the following <\/p>\n
three distinct disputes: (a) for enforcing an alleged agreement of sale of two <\/p>\n
tea estates, (b) for enforcing the lease for thirty years; and (c) for recovery of <\/p>\n
amounts  spent  by  it  in  regard   to  the   estates   on  the  assumption   that  it  was <\/p>\n
entitled to purchase the property or at least have a lease of 30 years.\n<\/p>\n
17.     It is clear from the petition averments (Para 11 of the application) that <\/p>\n
the   alleged   agreement   of   sale   was   entered   prior   to   the   lease   deed   dated <\/p>\n
21.12.2006   and   there   was   no   arbitration   agreement   in   regard   to   such <\/p>\n
agreement   of   sale.     When   admittedly   there   is   no   arbitration   agreement   in <\/p>\n
regard to the alleged agreement of sale, the appellant cannot seek arbitration <\/p>\n
with reference to any dispute regarding such agreement of sale, whether it is <\/p>\n
for performance or for damages for breach or any other relief arising out of <\/p>\n
or with reference to the agreement of sale.\n<\/p>\n
18.     An   Arbitrator   can   no   doubt   be   appointed   in   regard   to   any   disputes <\/p>\n
relating to the lease deed. But as noticed above, as the lease deed was not <\/p>\n
registered,   the   Arbitrator   can   not   rely   upon   the   lease   deed   or   any   term <\/p>\n
thereof and the lease deed cannot affect the immovable property which is the <\/p>\n
subject   matter   of  the  lease   nor   be  received   as   evidence   of  any   transaction <\/p>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
affecting   such   property.   Therefore,   the   Arbitrator   will   not   be   able   to <\/p>\n
entertain any claim for enforcement of the lease.\n<\/p>\n
19.     Lastly   we   may   consider   the   claim   for   recovery   of   the   amounts <\/p>\n
allegedly spent towards the tea estates, as a consequence of respondents not <\/p>\n
selling the estates or not permitting the appellant to enjoy the lease for 30 <\/p>\n
years.   If   this   claim   is   treated   as   a   claim   for   damages   for   breach   in   not <\/p>\n
granting the lease for 30 years then it would be for enforcement of the terms <\/p>\n
of the lease deed which is impermissible under section 49 of the Registration <\/p>\n
Act. If it is treated as claim de hors the lease deed then the arbitrator may not <\/p>\n
have jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the arbitration agreement (clause <\/p>\n
35) is available only to settle any dispute or difference arising between the <\/p>\n
parties in relation to or in any manner touching upon the lease deed and not <\/p>\n
in regard to disputes in general.\n<\/p>\n
20.     In paras 18 and 19 above, we have considered and stated the general <\/p>\n
legal  position   for  guidance  in  arbitrations,   even  though  the  same  does   not <\/p>\n
directly arise for consideration within the limited scope of the proceedings <\/p>\n
under section 11 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
21.     In   view   of   the   above   this   appeal   is   allowed,   the   order   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Chief Justice of <\/p>\n
Guwahati   High   Court   to   first   decide   the   issue   of   stamp   duty,   and   if   the <\/p>\n
document is duly stamped, then appoint an arbitrator in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          …………………………J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                          (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                                .............................J.\n\nJuly 20, 2011.                                            (A K Patnaik)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5820 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.24484\/2010] M\/s. SMS Tea Estates Pvt. 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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 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\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-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=\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-25T05:39:07+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\\\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T05:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\\\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T05:39:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\\\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 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":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 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\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-25T05:39:07+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T05:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011"},"wordCount":3845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011","name":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T05:39:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sms-tea-estates-p-ltd-vs-ms-chandmari-tea-co-p-ltd-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M\/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 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\/17972","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=17972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}