{"id":208398,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-18T11:24:57","modified_gmt":"2014-08-18T05:54:57","slug":"hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 677 of 2006()\n\n\n1. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SENIOR INSPECTOR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :.\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :28\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.\n            --------------------------\n              Crl.M.C.No.677 of 2006\n            --------------------------\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Whether showing the name of the manufacturer as<\/p>\n
marketed  by  on  the  package  would  violate  the<\/p>\n
mandatory requirements of Rule 6(1)(a) of Standards<\/p>\n
of  Weights  and  Measures  (Packaged  Commodities)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1977, as it stood before the amendment? It<\/p>\n
is the question to be settled in the petition.<\/p>\n
    2. First respondent lodged Annexure-D complaint<\/p>\n
before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod<\/p>\n
against the petitioner. It was taken cognizance as<\/p>\n
C.C.No.900\/2005 for the offence under Section 33<\/p>\n
and punishable under Section 51 of Standards of<\/p>\n
Weights and Measures (Enforcement)Act, 1985 read<\/p>\n
with Rule 6(1)(a) of Standards of Weights and<\/p>\n
Measures   (Packaged   Commodities)   Rules,   1977<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The case<\/p>\n
of the first respondent is that on 17.6.2005, the<\/p>\n
Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology inspected the<\/p>\n
CRMC 677\/06               2<\/span><\/p>\n
Margin     Free  Market,  Civil  Station   Junction,<\/p>\n
Kasaragod and found Brooke Bond Red Label Tea,<\/p>\n
marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai, being<\/p>\n
sold without bearing the declaration of the name<\/p>\n
and address of the manufacturer and packer of the<\/p>\n
commodity.     In such circumstances, it is alleged<\/p>\n
that provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules is<\/p>\n
violated and therefore, the offence is committed.<\/p>\n
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal    Procedure   to  quash  the   proceedings<\/p>\n
contending that when petitioner is the manufacturer<\/p>\n
as  defined    under  the Rules  and  name   of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner has been shown, there is substantive<\/p>\n
compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) and<\/p>\n
hence, the prosecution is only an abuse of process<\/p>\n
of the court.\n<\/p>\n
    3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner    and  learned Public   Prosecutor  were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
    4. Learned senior counsel pointed out that<\/p>\n
Annexure-A(1) and A(2) label of Brooke Bond Red<\/p>\n
CRMC 677\/06              3<\/span><\/p>\n
Label Tea shows the name of the petitioner and when<\/p>\n
petitioner   is  the   manufacturer,   it   is   in<\/p>\n
substantive compliance with the provisions of Rule<\/p>\n
6(1)(a) of the Rules and in addition to being the<\/p>\n
manufacturer, when the commodities are marketed by<\/p>\n
the manufacturer, it is shown that it is marketed<\/p>\n
by the manufacturer and therefore, it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that there is violation of the requirements<\/p>\n
provided under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules.<\/p>\n
    5. Argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is<\/p>\n
that when Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules mandates that<\/p>\n
the  label  shall  contain  a  definite  and  plain<\/p>\n
declaration showing the name and address of the<\/p>\n
manufacturer or where the manufacturer is not the<\/p>\n
packer, the name and address of the manufacturer<\/p>\n
and packer and for any imported package, the name<\/p>\n
and address of the importer, showing the name of<\/p>\n
the petitioner as marketed by is not in compliance<\/p>\n
with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of<\/p>\n
the Rules and therefore, there is violation, which<\/p>\n
is an offence under Section 33, punishable under<\/p>\n
CRMC 677\/06                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 51 of Standards of Weights and Measures<\/p>\n
(Enforcement) Act.\n<\/p>\n
    6. Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules provides that<\/p>\n
every package shall bear thereon or on a label<\/p>\n
securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and<\/p>\n
conspicuous declaration, made in accordance with<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Chapter, as to the name and<\/p>\n
address      of    the     manufacturer,          or     where   the<\/p>\n
manufacturer      is    not    the     packer,       the    name and<\/p>\n
address of the manufacturer and packer and for any<\/p>\n
imported     package      the    name      and   address      of the<\/p>\n
importer.      Rule    2(h)      of    the     Rules      defines  a<\/p>\n
manufacturer as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “Manufacturer” in relation to any commodity in
\n           packaged form, means a person who, or a firm or a
\n           Hindu undivided family which, produces, makes
\n           or manufactures such commodity and includes a
\n           person, firm or Hindu undivided family who or
\n           which puts, or causes to be put, any mark on any
\n           packaged commodity, not produced, made or
\n           manufactured by him or it, and the mark claims the
\n           commodity in the package to be a commodity
\n           produced, made or manufactured by such person,
\n           firm or Hindu undivided family, as the case may
\n           be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
CRMC 677\/06              5<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is    thus clear from  the  definition  that  a<\/p>\n
manufacturer could either be a person or firm which<\/p>\n
produces or makes or manufacturers such commodity.<\/p>\n
The inclusive definition widens the definition to<\/p>\n
include a person or firm who or which puts or<\/p>\n
causes to put any mark on any packaged commodity,<\/p>\n
though not produced, made or manufactured, by him<\/p>\n
or   it.    Hence,  petitioner  is   definitely   a<\/p>\n
manufacturer as defined under Rule 2(h) read with<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    7. When the manufacturer is not the packer,<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1)(a) provides that in addition to the name<\/p>\n
of the manufacturer, name of the packer should also<\/p>\n
be shown. When manufacturer is also the packer,<\/p>\n
only the name of the manufacturer need be shown.<\/p>\n
When one name alone is shown, it can only be the<\/p>\n
name of the manufacturer, even though it is not<\/p>\n
specifically   shown  that   he  or   it   is   the<\/p>\n
manufacturer. When petitioner is the manufacturer<\/p>\n
and name of the petitioner is shown, as mandated<\/p>\n
under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, though the name is<\/p>\n
CRMC 677\/06              6<\/span><\/p>\n
not qualified as the manufacturer, he or it could<\/p>\n
only be the manufacturer because, in a case where<\/p>\n
the manufacturer is also the packer, only the name<\/p>\n
of the manufacturer need be shown. It is not<\/p>\n
provided that it should be shown that he or it is<\/p>\n
the manufacturer and also the packer. Only if<\/p>\n
manufacturer  is not  the  packer,   names of   the<\/p>\n
manufacturer and packer need be shown. Suppose, in<\/p>\n
a case where the manufacturer is not only the<\/p>\n
manufacturer  but also  the  packer   and is   also<\/p>\n
marketing   the commodity,  by  showing  that   the<\/p>\n
product is marketed by the manufacturer, it cannot<\/p>\n
be said that provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the<\/p>\n
Rules are violated. It is not necessary to qualify<\/p>\n
the name of the manufacturer, if one name alone is<\/p>\n
shown, because, if the manufacturer is also the<\/p>\n
packer, it is not necessary to show the names of<\/p>\n
the manufacturer as also the packer. When only one<\/p>\n
name is shown, he or it shall be the manufacturer.<\/p>\n
In such a case, it enables the consumer to know the<\/p>\n
name of the manufacturer. Annexure-E communication<\/p>\n
CRMC 677\/06              7<\/span><\/p>\n
received by the petitioner from Ministry of Food<\/p>\n
and Consumer Affairs, clarifying that provisions of<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules does not require it<\/p>\n
necessary to qualify the name of the manufacturer<\/p>\n
with a phrase “manufactured by”, strengthens the<\/p>\n
said conclusion. In such circumstances, when there<\/p>\n
is substantive compliance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, continuation of the<\/p>\n
proceedings is only an abuse of the process of the<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
     Petition is allowed. C.C.No.900\/2005 on the<\/p>\n
file    of  Chief   Judicial  Magistrate’s   Court,<\/p>\n
Kasaragod is quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\n28th September, 2010  (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 677 of 2006() 1. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED, … Petitioner Vs 1. SENIOR INSPECTOR, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :. For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-18T05:54:57+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\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-18T05:54:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1102,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-18T05:54:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-18T05:54:57+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\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-18T05:54:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":1102,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010","name":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-18T05:54:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-limited-vs-senior-inspector-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Lever Limited vs Senior Inspector on 28 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208398","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=208398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}