{"id":197952,"date":"2010-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-19T00:32:55","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T19:02:55","slug":"patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3853\/2010\t 1\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3853 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATAN\nDISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJEHABHAI\nKAMABHAI &amp; 8 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHS MUNSHAW for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n9. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner   Patan District Panchayat has challenged the order<br \/>\npassed by Labour Court, Palanpur in Recovery Application No.909 of<br \/>\n1996 (Old No.3087 of 1993) decided on 3rd November 2009.<br \/>\nThe Labour Court, Palanpur has granted difference of minimum wages in<br \/>\nfavour of nine workmen respondents to pay Rs.11,723\/- to each<br \/>\nworkman. Against which, present petition is filed by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that petitioner used to occasionally<br \/>\nemployed daily wagers on purely temporary and on ad-hoc basis<br \/>\ndepending upon the availability of work and funds for the repairs and<br \/>\nmaintenance of the roads. The respondents who worked as a daily<br \/>\nwagers depending upon the availability of work and funds between 1980<br \/>\nto 1985 and their desire to work approached the Labour Court,<br \/>\nPalanpur by filing Reference No.45 of 1996 praying for reinstatement,<br \/>\ncontinuity and full back wages. The Labour Court has rejected the<br \/>\nreference on 29th June 2000 and holding that none of<br \/>\nrespondent had worked 240 days in any of the year and there is no<br \/>\nviolation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter,<br \/>\nrespondents workmen preferred Special Civil Application No.6450 of<br \/>\n2001 which was dismissed by this Court. Against which, Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal No.909 of 2001 was preferred by respondents which has been<br \/>\nalso rejected on 5th September 2001. Thereafter, recovery<br \/>\napplication was preferred by respondents being Recovery Application<br \/>\nNo.3087 of 1993 claiming huge amount of Rs.4,63,959\/- which has been<br \/>\nrenumbered as Recovery Application No.909 of 1996. Thereafter,<br \/>\nrespondents have reduced their claim to Rs.11,722=65 ps., for each<br \/>\nrespondents alleging that they were underpaid. The petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled detailed reply and denied averments made in recovery<br \/>\napplication and though workmen have not completed 240 days continue<br \/>\nservice, Labour Court has allowed the Recovery Application on flimsy<br \/>\nand baseless ground, therefore, present petition is filed by<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Munsha and I<br \/>\nhave also perused order passed by Labour Court, Palanpur in Recovery<br \/>\nApplication. This recovery application has been filed by workmen<br \/>\nclaiming difference of wages based on Minimum Wages Act for the<br \/>\nperiod from 1980 to 1985. Before Labour Court, workman Jehabhai<br \/>\nKamabhai was examined at Ex.20 whose evidence has been considered to<br \/>\nbe applied to each workman those who are included in recovery<br \/>\napplication. According to Jehabhai Kamabhai, they were paid Rs.5=50<br \/>\nps., per day wages which was no minimum wage and no pay slip was<br \/>\ngiven by petitioner, therefore, being a difference of minimum wage<br \/>\nfor the period from 1980 to 1985, amount of Rs.11,722=65 ps., has<br \/>\nbeen claimed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nbehalf of petitioner, one Sevantilal Dhudabhai Parmar was examined at<br \/>\nEx.23, who admitted before Labour Court in cross-examination that<br \/>\nwhile paying Rs.5=50 ps., per day wage to workman from January, 1980<br \/>\nto October 1985, the dearness allowance which is required to be paid<br \/>\nalong with daily wage, that was not paid to concerned workmen. One<br \/>\nwitness Ex.47 Kishorbhai Gamit was examined by petitioner who also<br \/>\nadmitted in cross-examination that at the time when daily wage was<br \/>\npaid to workmen, it was not included dearness allowance which was<br \/>\navailable to workman under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. So,<br \/>\nboth witnesses; Shri Parmar and Shri Gamit admitted before Labour<br \/>\nCourt that dearness allowance which has been revised being a special<br \/>\nallowance at every six months by Government was not paid to workmen<br \/>\nfor the period from 1980 to 1985 along with daily wage Rs.5=50 ps.<br \/>\nTherefore, according to statement which has been prepared and<br \/>\ncalculated amount as per Ex.18 by workman has been admitted by both<br \/>\nwitnesses produced by petitioner and on that basis, Labour Court has<br \/>\nconsidered pre-exsiting right of each workman to receive minimum<br \/>\nwages with daily allowance fixed by Government periodically revised<br \/>\nafter six months and that payment was not made, therefore, each<br \/>\nrespondent workman is entitled difference of minimum wage considering<br \/>\ndaily allowance which is available to respondents workmen, Labour<br \/>\nCourt has granted Rs.11,723\/- in favour of respondents workmen while<br \/>\nexercising the power under Sec.33(C)(2) of ID Act, 1947, when<br \/>\npre-existing right to recover such amount has been established by<br \/>\nworkmen and similarly admitted by two witnesses of petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that<br \/>\nreference of reinstatement has been rejected by Labour Court in<br \/>\nrespect of workmen who have no connection at all to the claim of<br \/>\ndifference of minimum wages made by workmen. Therefore, contentions<br \/>\nraised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw cannot be accepted, hence,<br \/>\nrejected, looking to the order passed by Labour Court which is based<br \/>\non admission made by two witnesses as referred above and accordingly,<br \/>\nLabour Court has rightly granted difference of minimum wages based on<br \/>\ndaily allowance which was no paid to workmen along with daily wage,<br \/>\ntherefore, Labour Court has not committed any error which requires<br \/>\ninterference by this Court. There is no jurisdictional error<br \/>\ncommitted by Labour Court while exercising the powers under<br \/>\nSec.33(C)(2) of ID Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nthere is no substance in present petition, accordingly, present<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis directed to petitioner to pay Rs.11,723\/- to each respondent<br \/>\nworkman by account payee cheque in name of each respondent workman,<br \/>\nafter proper verification, within a period of one month from the date<br \/>\nof receipt of present order.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3853\/2010 1\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3853 of 2010 ========================================================= PATAN DISTRICT PANCHAYAT &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus JEHABHAI KAMABHAI &amp; 8 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T19:02:55+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\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T19:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":886,\"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\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T19:02:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T19:02:55+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\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T19:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010"},"wordCount":886,"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\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010","name":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T19:02:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patan-vs-jehabhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patan vs Jehabhai on 13 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/197952","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=197952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}