{"id":232701,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-30T20:02:00","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T14:32:00","slug":"p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19073 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHRI.VASUDEVASHRAMAM,ARJUN HILL,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SHRI.HEMACHANDRAN, AGED 62,\n\n3. N.P.GOULDAS, AGED 73,\n\n4. K.SATHYAPAL, AGED 65,\n\n5. M.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 73\n\n6. K.RAMACHANDRAN VAIDYAR, AGED 82,\n\n7. A.N.RUGMINI,AGED 71,\n\n8. PROF.K.M.JAYARAJ,AGED 70,\n\n9. K.K.S.NAMBIAR, AGED 80.\n\n10. DR.P.RAMAN,AGED 60,\n\n11. ARANGIL M.GOPINATHAN, AGED 62,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :09\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                            W.P.(C) No.19073 of 2010\n                            --------------------------------------\n                       Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated 06.04.2010 passed by<\/p>\n
the learned Munsiff, Quilandy on I.A.No.44 of 2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2009.<\/p>\n
Petitioner\/plaintiff sued    respondents for a declaration that          meeting of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1, Shri Vasudeva Ashramam Society (for short, “the society”)<\/p>\n
held on 28.01.2009 is null and void and a decree for prohibitory injunction to<\/p>\n
restrain respondent No.2\/secretary of the society from convening the extra<\/p>\n
ordinary general body meeting on 08.04.2009. Along with the suit petitioner filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.383 of 2009 for an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.2<\/p>\n
convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Learned Munsiff ordered notice to the<\/p>\n
respondents and vide Ext.P3, order dated 06.04.2009 granted interim order of<\/p>\n
injunction restraining respondent No.2 from convening                the meeting on<\/p>\n
08.04.2009 in violation of clause 11 of the memorandum (bye-law).           It is the<\/p>\n
case of petitioner that in violation of the said order respondent No.2 convened<\/p>\n
meeting on 08.04.2009. Consequent to that, petitioner filed I.A.No.44 of 2010<\/p>\n
(Ext.P4) for amendment of plaint to challenge validity of the meeting held on<\/p>\n
08.04.2009 and seeking consequential reliefs. That application was opposed by<\/p>\n
the respondents contending that there was no violation of the order of injunction<\/p>\n
since meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the<\/p>\n
bye-law.       Learned Munsiff vide Ext.P5, order dismissed Ext.P4, application<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.19073\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
holding that materials on record would show that meeting was convened in<\/p>\n
accordance with clause 11 of bye-law and that         amendment if allowed would<\/p>\n
change the nature and character of the suit. That order is under challenge in this<\/p>\n
Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that court below has gone<\/p>\n
wrong in deciding upon merit of the amendment and holding at this stage that<\/p>\n
meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-<\/p>\n
law. Learned counsel for respondents contend that there was no violation of<\/p>\n
order of injunction in that as observed by the learned Munsiff, meeting was<\/p>\n
convened in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law. It is contended that<\/p>\n
amendment sought for was not necessary for decision of the case and that<\/p>\n
attempt of petitioner is to protract the proceeding. Learned counsel states that<\/p>\n
the litigation involving respondent No.1 started as early as in the year 1994.<\/p>\n
        2.      I have gone through the relevant records placed before me. It is<\/p>\n
seen from Ext.P3 that there was an interim order of injunction restraining<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 from convening meeting on 08.04.2009 in violation of clause<\/p>\n
11 of the bye-law. Presently I am not at the question whether the meeting held<\/p>\n
on 08.04.2009 violated the order of injunction. That is a matter to be decided<\/p>\n
in other appropriate proceedings.      It is not disputed and a reading of Ext.P4,<\/p>\n
application also shows that amendment was sought              for consequent to<\/p>\n
convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Petitioner wanted to challenge validity<\/p>\n
of the said meeting and seek reliefs consequent to that. That is an event which<\/p>\n
happened subsequent to the institution of suit and hence had to be brought into<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.19073\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaint by amendment in case petitioner wanted to challenge it. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that documents produced           would reveal<\/p>\n
that extra ordinary general body meeting held on 08.04.2009 was legal and it<\/p>\n
was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law and as such the suit itself<\/p>\n
became infructuous. I am afraid, learned Munsiff was not correct in entering<\/p>\n
such a finding while considering the application for amendment. Time and<\/p>\n
again it was held that while considering an application for amendment, court has<\/p>\n
not to look into the merit of the amendment sought for. What is required to be<\/p>\n
considered is only whether amendment is required for a just disposal of the<\/p>\n
case and to decide the controversy involved. I stated that what is sought to be<\/p>\n
incorporated by the amendment is        the subsequent event of respondent No.2<\/p>\n
convening meeting on 08.04.2009. Questions whether meeting convened by<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-<\/p>\n
law and whether petitioner will ultimately succeed on his allegations in the plaint<\/p>\n
and to be incorporated by amendment are matters to be decided after trial.<\/p>\n
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am persuaded to<\/p>\n
think that learned Munsiff was not correct on law or on facts in disallowing<\/p>\n
prayer for amendment. Hence Ext.P5, order is liable to be set aside and I do so.<\/p>\n
       3.      Learned counsel for respondents has expressed the apprehension<\/p>\n
that a litigation which started in the year 1994 is likely to continue further.<\/p>\n
Apprehension of respondents can be allayed by directing learned Munsiff to<\/p>\n
expedite trial and disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed.    Ext.P5, order is set aside.<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.19073\/2010<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P4, application is allowed. Petitioner shall carry out the amendment within<\/p>\n
fourteen (14) days from this day or within such time as may be extended by the<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff on application of petitioner. Learned Munsif shall expedite trial<\/p>\n
and disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19073 of 2010(O) 1. P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. SHRI.VASUDEVASHRAMAM,ARJUN HILL, … Respondent 2. SHRI.HEMACHANDRAN, AGED 62, 3. N.P.GOULDAS, AGED 73, 4. K.SATHYAPAL, AGED 65, 5. M.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 73 6. K.RAMACHANDRAN VAIDYAR, AGED 82, […]<\/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-232701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 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\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T14:32:00+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\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T14:32:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":847,\"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\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T14:32:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 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":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 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\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T14:32:00+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\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T14:32:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":847,"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\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010","name":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T14:32:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-vasudevan-vs-shri-vasudevashramam-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.P.Vasudevan vs Shri.Vasudevashramam on 9 July, 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\/232701","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=232701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}