{"id":243423,"date":"1983-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983"},"modified":"2017-06-18T13:19:20","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T07:49:20","slug":"satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","title":{"rendered":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1984 Raj 105, 1983 WLN 254<\/div>\n
Author: D Prasad<\/div>\n
Bench: D Prasad<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Dwarka Prasad, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This is an appeal against the order passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A C.P.C. by the learned District Judge. Merta dated Jan. 15. 1983. The learned District Judge found as a fact that the appellants had disobeyed the order of temporary injunction passed by that court and they unlawfully took possession of the shop in dispute, in derogation of the order of temporary in-‘junction. He, therefore, directed that each one of the appellants be detained in civil prison for a period of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
2. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for a declaration that the sale deed dated July 24. 1978 executed by the appellant Sat-yanarayan in favour of the wives of appellants Nos. 2 to 4 was ineffective against the plaintiff and for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed a temporary injunction was passed by the learned District Judge. Merta on March 3. 1982 restraining the defendants in that suit from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in dispute and from damaging the said shop in any manner. The learned District Judge also directed the defendants to maintain status quo. After a few days, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 39. Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging that the appellants had broken open the lock of the shop and that they had removed the Roods and had made structural alterations inside the shop by removing the intervening wall. Another application was moved on Dec. 3. 1982 by the plaintiff-respondent praying that the condition of the shop as it existed on Mar. 3. 1982 should be restored and the appellants should be directed to make payment of compensation for the loss caused to him on account of alterations made therein and that the appellants should also be punished for the disobedience of the injunction order passed by the Court on March 3. 1962. The learned District Judge by his order dated January 15. 1983 came to the conclusion that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court on March 3. 1982 and had unlawfully taken over possession of the shop in dispute and had made alterations therein. The trial court consequently directed the appellants to restore possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent, after putting the said shop in the same condition in which it was on March 3. 1982. It was also directed that a Commissioner be appointed to assess the damage caused to the plaintiff-respondent on account of demolition of structures and alterations made in the shop. The learned District Judge also directed that each one of the appellants be detained in civil prison for a period of 7 days, on account of the disobedience or breach of the injunction order committed by them.\n<\/p>\n
3. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants did not advance any arguments on merits. He did not contest the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge on the question that the appellants had forcibly taken over possession of the shop in dispute and had unlawfully demolished the structures and thereby wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court on March 3. 1982. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants before me was that the appellants crave the mercy of the court and that they tender unqualified apology for their conduct find pray that the court may graciously accept their apology. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended before me that the conduct of the appellants shows that they have no regard to the dignity of the court as they took the law in their own hands and unlawfully took over possession of the shop in dispute and demolished the intervening wall and wilfully disobeyed the injunction order issued by the trial court, regardless of the consequence and that the conduct of the appellant was reprehensible. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent referred to the decision? of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Advocate General, State of Bihar v.  Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR<\/a> 1960 SC 946: Mulkh Raj v. The State of Punjab. AIR<\/a> 1972 SC 1197. and Mohd. Osman Shaheed v. Mohd. Baqur Hussain Shaa. 1980 Cri LJ 845 and urged that this Court should reject the apology tendered by the appellants and the punishment of detention in civil prison imposed by the trial court should not be interfered with by this Court in the aforesaid circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
4. As already observed above, when the appeal came up for hearing before this Court on the very first occasion, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants undertake to reconstruct the intervening wall and restore the shop in the same condition in which it stood on March 3. 1982 and to the satisfaction of the plaintiff-respondent and hand over possession of the shop in dispute to him. On Feb. 3. 1983, learned counsel for the appellants stated before this Court that the intervening wall had been constructed and he tendered the keys of the said shop, which were handed over to the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent reported that the shop has been restored to the original condition as it existed on March 3, 1982, but he stated that certain movable properties belonging to the plaintiff respondent, which had been unlawfully removed by the appellants, have not been restored to them. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent stated before this Court that the appellants have reasonably compensated the plaintiff respondent in respect of the movable proper-lies, which were kept in the shop when the appellants took unlawful possession thereof and which were not found when the possession of the said shop was restored to the plaintiff-respondent under the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
5. Thus, a substantial part of the order passed by the learned District Judge. Merta relating to restoration of the shop to its original condition and to the  redelivery  of  possession  of  the  said shop to the  plaintiff-respondent and also relating to compensating    the    plaintiff-respondent for the loss or damage caused  to  his  movable   properties,   has  been complied with  by  the “appellants.  There is no necessity now    of     appointing a Commissioner    to     assess    the    loss    or damages   caused   to  the   plaintiff-respondent,   as  his  learned  counsel  has  stated today that the appellants    have – reasonably   compensated   the      plaintiff-respondent  for the  loss  caused to him and he has  no  further     grudge  on  that    score. Now, the only question which    remains for   consideration   is   whether   this   Court should  accept  the  unconditional  apology tendered  by the appellants in respect of their   conduct  of     wilfully     disobeying the orders of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court on March. 3. 1982. There cannot be any doubt that the conduct of the appellants,  in  breaking open the lock of the shop in dispute and taking  over  possession  of  the  said  shop in utter  contravention    of     the    injunction order   passed     by   the   trial  court,   was wholly  unjustified     and  deserves  to be condemned.    The  conduct  of the  appellants   is   no   doubt      reprehensible.     The gravity of the  offence committed  by the appellants in  unlawfully     entering     into the shop by breaking open the lock and committing a  breach of the     injunction order  cannot  be lost  sight of.    There is no doubt that  justice in court is    not  a marketable commodity and a party to an action  cannot  be  allowed  to deliberately disobey the order of the court with impunity   and   carry   an   erroneous   impression  that  it  would     amply     compensate the aggrieved party by payment of handsome  amount   and  thereby  get  itself relieved  of    wilful     disobedience     of    the court’s   order.     The   action   on   the   Part of  the  contemner.   which  is  capable    of purging  the   contempt,     is   a  clear     unqualified apology  tendered  at the earliest opportunity.    The   court  must  be  satisfied that the contemner was really showing  contrition   for     his  conduct  and  the penitence must  be     apparent    and    real. Otherwise,     mere    tendering an apology in order to  escape  from punishment  being imposed by the Court is a mere contrivance and cannot be justifiably accepted by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
6. In the present case, although the appellants disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court with impunity and had committed gross contempt, yet the unqualified apology was tendered in this Court on the very first oportunity. Further the appellants have again tendered an unqualified apology in writing on February 3. 1983. I am satisfied in the circumstance of this case that the appellants are really penitent for the indefencible conduct in which they wrongfully indulged by disobeying the injunction order passed by the trial court. In these circumstances, I accept the unqualified apology tender- ed by the appellants but would administer a strong and stern warning to them that they should be careful in their future conduct and that they must show on all occasion unqualified regard and respect for the dignity of the courts of law and the orders passed by them and willingly and fully comply with such orders.\n<\/p>\n
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge. Merta is confirmed so far as all other directions are given therein except those relating to appointment of Commissioner and of detaining the appellants in civil prison. In that respect the order passed by the learned District Judge dated Jan 15, 1983 is modified and the appellants are let off with a warning in place of sending them to civil prison. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 Equivalent citations: AIR 1984 Raj 105, 1983 WLN 254 Author: D Prasad Bench: D Prasad JUDGMENT Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A C.P.C. by the learned District Judge. Merta dated Jan. […]<\/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":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - 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\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T07:49:20+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T07:49:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\"},\"wordCount\":1576,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\",\"name\":\"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T07:49:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - 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\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T07:49:20+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983","datePublished":"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T07:49:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983"},"wordCount":1576,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983","name":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T07:49:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyanarayan-and-ors-vs-ram-niwas-on-3-march-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satyanarayan And Ors. vs Ram Niwas on 3 March, 1983"}]},{"@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\/243423","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=243423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243423\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}