{"id":217889,"date":"1984-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984"},"modified":"2016-08-26T22:39:42","modified_gmt":"2016-08-26T17:09:42","slug":"controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","title":{"rendered":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai<\/div>\n
Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 11 ITD 274 Mum<\/div>\n
Bench: K Viswanathan, R Sangani<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
R.L. Sangani, Judicial Member  <\/p>\n
1. This appeal by the department arises out of the proceeding for the assessment of estate duty and the only point involved is regarding the extent of relief admissible under Section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
2. Rameshwar Khetan, the deceased, was formerly a partner in the firm of Balchand Rameshwardas. The other partner was his father Balchand, Balchand died on 10-4-1970. On the said death, the deceased, Rameshwar inherited the interest of Balchand in the partnership firm. He then became the sole proprietor of the said business. The deceased also inherited self-occupied flat as well as motor car and jewellery. The above properties passed on the death of Balchand and were inherited by the deceased Rameshwar on 10-4-1970. Within nearly nine months of his inheriting this property,  the deceased,  Rameshwar,  died on 18-1-1971. Hence, the said property, which had passed on the first death, passed again on the second death which took place within about nine months. Consequently, provisions of Section 31 for grant of quick succession relief were attracted.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Assistant Controller granted relief of Rs.   1,834 under Section 31 as  per directions  of the  Board. The Controller (Appeals) calculated the relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 on the value  of the property that passed twice in quick succession and accepted the claim of the accountable person for grant of relief of Rs.  21,682 under the said provision. The department has now come in appeal before us and the only ground raised is that the learned Controller (Appeals) erred in holding that quick succession relief of Rs. 21,682 was admissible and  not of Rs. 1,834 allowed by the Assistant Controller.\n<\/p>\n
Section 31 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Where the Board is satisfied that estate duty has become payable on any property passing upon the death of any person, and that subsequently within five years estate duty has again become payable on the same property or part thereof passing on the death of the person to whom the property passed on the first death, the amount of estate duty payable on the second death in respect of the property so passing shall be reduced as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Where the second death occurs within one year of the first death, by fifty per cent.\n<\/p>\n
Where the second death occurs within two years of the first death, by forty per cent.\n<\/p>\n
Where the second death occurs within three years of the first death, by thirty per cent.\n<\/p>\n
Where the second death occurs within four years of the first death, by twenty per cent.\n<\/p>\n
Where the second death occurs within five years of the first death, by ten per cent.\n<\/p>\n
4.  We asked the learned departmental representative  to point out if there was any error in the findings of the Controller (Appeals) that the property mentioned above was the  subject-matter  of passing in  quick succession and that if relief is  calculated  at  the  rate  mentioned in Section 31, the relief would work out  to  Rs.   21,682.    No  error was pointed out to us. Hence, we accept the finding of the Controller  (Appeals) to  the effect that the property mentioned above had passed twice  in  quick succession, first on death of Balchand on 10-4-1970 and  second on the death of the deceased Rameshwar on   18-1-1971.    The  second death  had  occurred within one year of the first and, as such, in terms of Section 31, relief to the extent of fifty  per  cent  was  admissible and that relief on  calculation came to Rs. 21,682.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The main contention of the learned  departmental representative was that under Section 31, the extent of relief is to be determined by the Board and not by the Assistant Controller.    It was pointed out that the Board had determined the relief at Rs. 1,834, and, as such, the Assistant Controller had no option but to grant relief only to the extent of Rs. 1,834 even though admissible relief in terms of Section 31   worked  out to a higher amount.   According to the learned departmental  representative, the question of extent of relief was in the absolute  discretion of the Board and the accountable person had no  locus standi to make a claim for a higher amount.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand,  was  that the jurisdiction  of the Board was confined to  deciding whether quick succession relief was   admissible.    The   extent of relief is a matter of calculation in  accordance with the provisions of Section 31 and that calculation is  to be made by the Assistant Controller and the relief is also to be granted by him.    Hence,   he was bound to give relief as was admissible in terms of Section 31,  once the Board communicated its satisfaction on the point that the quick relief succession was admissible.\n<\/p>\n
7.  We have considered the rival  submissions.  We have  already   quoted Section 31.  A perusal of said section indicates that what the Board has to satisfy itself is  whether  the  estate duty  had become payable  on any property and whether subsequently within five years, estate duty had again become payable on the same property or any part thereof passing on the death of the person to whom the property passed on the first  death.  It is only on these facts  that the board has to record its satisfaction. Once the   satisfaction   of   the   Board   on   those   facts is   communicated, the process    of   calculation of the relief  commences.    The calculation of the relief is obviously to be made by the Assistant Controller.   Section 31 does not say that the Board shall in its discretion determine the  relief to be given.  On the  other hand, the mandatory language of the second part of that section indicates that the relief to be  given is to be calculated in  accordance   with the  scale  given therein.    The relief  varies with the period that elapses between the two deaths.  It is fifty per   cent if the period is less than a year, it is ten per cent when the  period is more than four years and less than five years. Thus, no discretion is given to any authority in working out the relief.  The relief is to be worked out in accordance with the express provision of the section and  obviously this  working is to be done by the Assistant Controller, when he prepares the demand for the duty payable. We, therefore, hold that the Assistant Controller  should have calculated the relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 after receipt of the communication from the Board regarding its satisfaction about the facts mentioned before. The Controller (Appeals) has calculated that relief and granted the same.  Hence,  there is no ground to interfere in the order of the Controller (Appeals).\n<\/p>\n
8.  We may mention here that no  decision had been cited before us in support of the rival submissions by the parties.  However,  we   may,  with benefit,  refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in K.C. Manavedan v. Dy. CED [1965] 55 ITR (ED) 36. One  of the  questions   that  was considered by the High Court was whether the Assistant Controller was bound to reduce the amount of estate duty payable by grant of relief under Section 31 at the time of raising demand. The High Court held that he was bound  to do  so in view of the mandatory provision of Section 31. It was argued before the High Court on behalf of the department that the relief had  to be  granted  by the Board, which was an authority different from the assessing authority under the Act and, as such,  the demand for the full  amount of tax could be correctly made. Their Lordships dealing with this contention observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 …I am not disposed to agree with this argument….But when it comes to the question of demand of duty, Section 31 reduces the amount of estate duty payable in a particular manner. Before a demand can therefore be issued to the accountable person calling upon him to pay estate duty, Section 31 must be applied and the demand can therefore issue only that amount of duty payable as reduced by the application of that section. It is clear then that the demand for the full amount of tax is illegal;….\n<\/p>\n
9.  It is true that the facts in that case are not identical with the facts  of the present case. However, the ratio of that decision is that provisions of Section 31 were mandatory and the  Assistant Controller was bound  to give  effect  to  those  provisions at the time of raising the demand. In the present case also, at the time of raising the  demand,  the  Assistant  Controller was bound to calculate the relief in accordance with the  provisions of Section 31 and reduce the amount payable by the said relief.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1985 11 ITD 274 Mum Bench: K Viswanathan, R Sangani ORDER R.L. Sangani, Judicial Member 1. This appeal by the department arises out of the proceeding for the assessment of estate duty and the only point […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nController Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - 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\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-26T17:09:42+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T17:09:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\"},\"wordCount\":1487,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\",\"name\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T17:09:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - 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\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-26T17:09:42+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984","datePublished":"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T17:09:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984"},"wordCount":1487,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984","name":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T17:09:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/controller-of-estate-duty-vs-s-p-khetan-on-10-september-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Controller Of Estate Duty vs S.P. Khetan on 10 September, 1984"}]},{"@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\/217889","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=217889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}