{"id":195789,"date":"2011-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-02-24T14:55:05","modified_gmt":"2015-02-24T09:25:05","slug":"smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>26.07.2011.\n          Shri J.N. Tripathi for the petitioner.\n          Shri S.M. Lal, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.<\/pre>\n<p>5 to 8.\n<\/p>\n<p>          None appears for the remaining respondents, even though<br \/>\nserved and represented. None had appeared on the last date of<br \/>\nhearing also.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Petitioner was a returned candidate having been elected to<br \/>\nthe post of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat elections held in the<br \/>\nyear 2009-2010. She was elected to the post of Sarpanch of<br \/>\nGram Panchayat Nikkum under Block Birsa District Balaghat.<br \/>\nSubsequently, on recounting the petitioner was declared to have<br \/>\nlost the election and in her place respondent No.1 Smt. Urmila<br \/>\nVinod Saiyyam was declared as elected. Assailing the aforesaid<br \/>\nelection of respondent No.1, petitioner presented an election<br \/>\npetition before SDO, Baihar &#8211; the prescribed authority, and on<br \/>\nnotice being issued respondent No.1 filed an application under<br \/>\nOrder VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interalia<br \/>\ncontending that the statutory requirement of Rule 3 sub-rule (1)<br \/>\nand (2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt<br \/>\nPractices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, has<br \/>\nnot been complied with and, therefore, the petition be dismissed.<br \/>\nThis application has been allowed by the impugned order-dated<br \/>\n19.7.2010 &#8211; Annexure P\/1 and, therefore, the petitioner is before<br \/>\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Shri J.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nargued that even though in the impugned order-dated 19.7.2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>no reason is given for rejecting the election petition, but in the<br \/>\napplication filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an objection was<br \/>\nraised to the effect that the election petition is not personally<br \/>\npresented by the petitioner and, therefore, the same is<br \/>\nunsustainable. It is stated by Shri J.N. Tripathi that the petitioner<br \/>\npersonally appeared before the SDO on 9.2.2010 and presented<br \/>\nthe petition and an endorsement in this regard is available in the<br \/>\nelection petition so also in the order-dated 10.2.2010.<br \/>\nAccordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petition is<br \/>\ndismissed on improper considerations.\n<\/p>\n<p>      To consider the aforesaid ground, this Court on the last<br \/>\ndate of hearing had summoned the original records of the<br \/>\nelection petition and the records have been sent by the Election<br \/>\nTribunal directly to the Registrar of this Court and the same is<br \/>\navailable on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Even though in the order passed by the learned prescribed<br \/>\nauthority on 19.7.2010 vide Annexure P\/1, it is only stated that<br \/>\nthe election petition does not comply with the requirement of<br \/>\nRule 3(1) read with Rule 8, the actual defect in the election<br \/>\npetition is not pointed out. It is, therefore, a case where the<br \/>\nelection petition has been rejected and no reason is shown for<br \/>\nrejecting the election petition. It is a non-speaking order and does<br \/>\nnot show application of mind. That apart, if the objection filed by<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 is taken note of, it<br \/>\nwould be seen that basically two objections have been raised.<br \/>\nThe first is to the effect that the election petition was presented<br \/>\nbefore the Superintendent of the Office on 9.2.2010 and it was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>registered before the SDO on 10.2.2010 on which date the<br \/>\npetitioner was not present. It is further stated that each and every<br \/>\npage of the election petition and the documents filed does not<br \/>\nbear the signature of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      As far as presentation of the election petition is concerned,<br \/>\nin the original record a note regarding presentation of the petition<br \/>\nis made on 9.2.2010 and it is indicated that Smt. Sulekha Kushre<br \/>\nis present personally and has presented the election petition. In<br \/>\nthe order-sheet dated 10.2.2010 also, it is stated that the election<br \/>\npetition is presented by the petitioner and the order-sheets of the<br \/>\nelection petition are signed by the SDO on 10.2.2010. Prima<br \/>\nfacie on going through the same, it is clear that petitioner is<br \/>\nshown to be present at the time of presentation of the election<br \/>\npetition and without taking note of these factors the application<br \/>\nunder Order VII Rule 11 has been allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      That apart, signature of the petitioner is available on each<br \/>\nand every page of the election petition so also in the copies filed,<br \/>\navailable on record. Even the photocopies of the documents filed<br \/>\nbear the signature of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it<br \/>\nis a case where the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has<br \/>\nbeen allowed without appreciating the totality of the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances and without going through the records in detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The fact as to whether the election petition was presented<br \/>\nby the petitioner, whether the petitioner was present on 9.2.2010<br \/>\nand 10.2.2010, whether presentation of the election petition in<br \/>\nthe office of the SDO and acceptance of the same by an<br \/>\nauthorized representative is permissible or not, are all questions<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of fact and law, which has to be decided after hearing all<br \/>\nconcerned and recording evidence and it was not a fit case where<br \/>\nthese questions could be decided in a proceeding under Order<br \/>\nVII Rule 11 CPC, that also in the manner done, by a non-<br \/>\nspeaking order which does not show application of mind. Under<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, it is a fit case where the impugned order<br \/>\nshould be quashed and the matter remanded back to the Election<br \/>\nTribunal to proceed with the election petition afresh in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order-dated<br \/>\n19.7.2010 &#8211; Annexure P\/1 is quashed and the matter is remanded<br \/>\nback to the Election Tribunal to proceed with the election<br \/>\npetition in accordance to law and liberty is granted to respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 to raise the objections made in the application under Order<br \/>\nVII Rule 11 CPC in the written statement and thereafter the<br \/>\nElection Tribunal shall frame issues on this count and decide it<br \/>\nafter recording of evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and<br \/>\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Registry is directed to send back the records received from<br \/>\nthe office of the Election Tribunal immediately to the Election<br \/>\nTribunal for proceeding further in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Petition stands allowed and disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Certified copy as per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        (RAJENDRA MENON)<br \/>\n                                             JUDGE<br \/>\nAks\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 26.07.2011. Shri J.N. Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 to 8. None appears for the remaining respondents, even though served and represented. None had appeared on the last date of hearing also. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":987,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 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":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011"},"wordCount":987,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011","name":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T09:25:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sulekha-kushre-vs-smt-urmila-vinod-saiyyam-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sulekha Kushre vs Smt. Urmila Vinod Saiyyam on 26 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\/195789","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=195789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}