{"id":19604,"date":"2011-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-20T10:59:07","modified_gmt":"2017-07-20T05:29:07","slug":"commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1544\/2009\t 4\/ 4\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1544 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nV\nK PATEL & CO - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH R BHATT Sr Advocate with Ms MAUNA M BHATT\nfor\nAppellant \nRULE SERVED BY DS for\nOpponent \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI   18th April 2011\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n ORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
\tRevenue
\nis in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23rd
\nJanuary 2009.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\n8th March 2011, prima facie  finding that the
\nTribunal’s Order was not a reasoned order, we had issued notice for
\nfinal disposal. Though served, no one appeared for the
\nrespondent-assessee.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith
\nthe assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we had perused
\nthe Tribunal’s order. We find that several issues were dealt with by
\nthe Tribunal simply stating that the Tribunal finding no infirmity
\nwith the order passed by the CIT [A]. For example, in paragraph 13 of
\nthe impugned Order, the Tribunal considered the issue with
\nrespect to additions of Rs. 32,85,996\/= in the income of the assessee
\non account of suppression of profits. After recording the
\ncontroversy, Assessing Officer’s view and CIT [A]’s observations, the
\nTribunal gave its finding in the following manner :-\n<\/p>\n
“13.\tWe
\nhave considered the rival submissions, perused the material placed
\nbefore us. We find that the CIT [A] has given detailed reason while
\ngiving relief to the assessee, therefore, we do not find any
\ninfirmity in the order of the CIT [A]. We accordingly confirm the
\nsame. The ground no.2 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWithout
\nrepeating similar observations of the Tribunal with respect to other
\nissues, we may only record that the Tribunal has in the similar
\nfashion, upheld the CIT [A]’s order on other issues also. To our
\nmind, the Tribunal’s conclusion cannot be said to be backed by
\nreasons. By a separate order today, we had highlighted the
\nrequirement of giving reasons in Tribunal’s order, making following
\nobservations :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“As
\na final fact finding authority, Tribunal’s factual conclusions hold
\nimmense importance in Tax Appeal carried before us. Being a
\nspecialized Tribunal, it’s appreciation on legal questions also holds
\nconsiderable importance to us. When a Tribunal’s judgment is bereft
\nof any discussion either on facts or in law, it besides being an
\nunreasoned order of a quasi judicial tribunal, also increases our
\nburden together facts from other record and to verify whether the
\nultimate conclusion that the Tribunal arrived at, calls for any
\ninterference or not. In absence of any discussion on facts or on law
\nby the Tribunal, we are left to imagine what must have weighed with
\nthe Tribunal to arrive at a particular conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\tRequirement
\nof recording reasons by all authorities discharging judicial or quasi
\njudicial functions has been considered by the Apex Court in time
\nwithout numbers. In recent decision in case of Kranti
\nAssociates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors.,
\nreported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court referring to large
\nnumber of judgments on the point summarized the position as thus.\n<\/p>\n
“47.\tSummarizing
\nthe above discussion, this Court holds:\n<\/p>\n
a.\n<\/p>\n
In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even
\nin administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
\nprejudicially.\n<\/p>\n
b. A
\nquasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
\nconclusions.\n<\/p>\n
c.\n<\/p>\n
Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
\nprinciple of justice that justice must not only be done it must also
\nappear to be done as well.\n<\/p>\n
d.\n<\/p>\n
Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
\npossible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
\nadministrative power.\n<\/p>\n
e.\n<\/p>\n
Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision
\nmaker on  relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
\nconsiderations.\n<\/p>\n
f.\n<\/p>\n
Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
\ndecision making process as observing principles of natural justice by
\njudicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.\n<\/p>\n
g.\n<\/p>\n
Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.\n<\/p>\n
h.\n<\/p>\n
The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law
\nand constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions
\nbased on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial
\ndecision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
i.\n<\/p>\n
Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
\ndifferent as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
\ndecisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
\nthat the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is
\nimportant for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice
\ndelivery system.\n<\/p>\n
j.\n<\/p>\n
Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
\naccountability and transparency.\n<\/p>\n
k.\n<\/p>\n
If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about
\nhis\/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether
\nthe person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
\nprinciples of incremental ism.\n<\/p>\n
l.\n<\/p>\n
Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
\npretense of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to
\nbe equated with a valid decision making process.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tcannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
\n\ton abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not
\n\tonly makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but
\n\talso makes them subject to broader scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
\t(See
\nDavid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 \tHarward Law
\n\tReview 731-737).\n<\/p>\n
n.\n<\/p>\n
   Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
\ndoctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now
\nvirtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
\nStrasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and
\nAnya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court
\nreferred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
\nrequires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
\njudicial decisions”.\n<\/p>\n
o.\n<\/p>\n
   In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
\nsetting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of
\nlaw, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence
\nand is virtually a part of “Due Process”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tUnder
\nthe circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.
\nProceedings are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and
\ndisposal in accordance with law after giving its reasons.  We have
\nnot expressed any opinion on merits of the issue decided by the CIT
\n(A).”\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we are of
\nthe opinion that the appeal is required to be considered by the
\nTribunal afresh.\n<\/p>\n
For the above purpose,
\nthe impugned  Order dated 23rd January 2009 is
\nset-aside. Proceedings are placed back before the Tribunal for
\nconsideration in accordance with law. Tax Appeal is disposed of
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
{Akil
\nKureshi, J.}<\/p>\n
{Ms.\n<\/p>\n
Sonia Gokani, J.}<\/p>\n
Prakash*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1544\/2009 4\/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1544 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I – Appellant(s) Versus V K PATEL & CO – Opponent(s) ========================================================= […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-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=\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-20T05:29:07+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T05:29:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1088,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T05:29:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-20T05:29:07+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T05:29:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011"},"wordCount":1088,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011","name":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T05:29:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-on-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs On on 18 April, 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\/19604","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=19604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}