{"id":243507,"date":"2010-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-28T16:21:38","modified_gmt":"2015-05-28T10:51:38","slug":"alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA.No. 253 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ALIBABA,PROPRIETOR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M.G.ANTOONY, S\/O.M.A.GOERGE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.I.DANIEL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :03\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                  ...........................................\n                    M.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009\n                 .............................................\n          Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party in<\/p>\n
W.C.C.No.35\/2002      against          the      order        passed  by  the<\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.                          The brief facts<\/p>\n
necessary for the disposal of the appeal are                      stated  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      2. It is the   case of the             applicant that he was         a<\/p>\n
carpenter working under the opposite party and on the<\/p>\n
relevant day while he was doing the work, his hand got<\/p>\n
entangled in the machine, as a result of which, the little<\/p>\n
finger has to be amputated and phalanx of the ring finger<\/p>\n
also    had   to be removed.                Therefore he has claimed<\/p>\n
compensation as          an employee                  under the opposite<\/p>\n
party\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       3. On the other hand, the appellant\/opposite party<\/p>\n
would    contend that there was no                       employer employee<\/p>\n
relationship between the two and the incident took place<\/p>\n
when he had come to the unit of the appellant with a prayer<\/p>\n
                                 : 2 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
to use a machine for the purpose of cutting and while he was<\/p>\n
doing his own work, on account of his negligence, there was<\/p>\n
injury sustained by him and therefore, he cannot be asked to<\/p>\n
pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      4. In the first round of litigation, the opposite party did<\/p>\n
not seriously participate. Thereafter he moved a writ petition<\/p>\n
before this Court and this Court rightly dismissed the writ<\/p>\n
petition on the      ground that there is a statutory remedy<\/p>\n
available. Thereafter an appeal was preferred and this Court<\/p>\n
granted an opportunity to the party to put forward his case.<\/p>\n
The evidence       available before the court is that of the<\/p>\n
applicant, opposite party, one Baiju and James. According to<\/p>\n
the applicant, while he was working under the opposite<\/p>\n
party on the unfortunate day, the incident took place and he<\/p>\n
was taken by the opposite party to the hospital              and<\/p>\n
thereafter   there had been a dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n
According to the claimant, he had started working with him<\/p>\n
from 1998 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
      5. AW2 is one Baiju, who according to the claimant,<\/p>\n
was a worker along with him and he had also deposed before<\/p>\n
the   court that the incident took place while the claimant<\/p>\n
                               : 3 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
was working as an employee under the opposite party. Of<\/p>\n
course, the next witness – James is the brother-in-law of the<\/p>\n
applicant and he had also deposed before the court that on<\/p>\n
the relevant day the incident took place. As against this, the<\/p>\n
oral evidence available is that of the opposite party. He<\/p>\n
would depose that the applicant is a mobile carpenter and<\/p>\n
since the opposite party had the machine for cutting and<\/p>\n
as the claimant was doing his own private work, he         had<\/p>\n
approached him with promise to pay Rs.120\/= per hour as<\/p>\n
rent to use the machine and in that process he sustained the<\/p>\n
injury.   The evidence of the opposite party appears to be<\/p>\n
quite artificial in nature. The incident has taken place in his<\/p>\n
premises.    He was running a small scale unit. Admittedly,<\/p>\n
the small scale unit was dealing with furniture. It was during<\/p>\n
the process of manufacture of       furniture, the incident had<\/p>\n
taken place. According to the opposite party, only his son<\/p>\n
and wife were helping him.          Certainly the wife cannot<\/p>\n
work as a carpenter and evidence is to the effect that they<\/p>\n
were only helping in the process of polishing and varnishing<\/p>\n
the furniture.     That    appears to be more probable and<\/p>\n
acceptable. According to the opposite party, while he was<\/p>\n
                              : 4 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
coming back from some other place he saw the applicant<\/p>\n
standing on the gate with closed hand with the injuries and<\/p>\n
thereafter he had taken him. Until and unless there was<\/p>\n
some personal interest or involvement, he would not have<\/p>\n
taken him to the hospital. The     place of accident, ownership<\/p>\n
of the place of accident, nature of work, avocation of the<\/p>\n
applicant and nature of work done in the small scale unit of<\/p>\n
the opposite party are all which will lead to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the applicant was working as a carpenter under the<\/p>\n
opposite party and it was at that time the incident took<\/p>\n
place and he had sustained the injuries. It has also to be<\/p>\n
stated that when an appeal is preferred against the finding<\/p>\n
of facts, the Workmen’s Compensation Act also restricts the<\/p>\n
entertainment unless there is total mis-appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence. It has also to be stated that the Workmen’s<\/p>\n
Compensation Commissioner has analysed the evidence and<\/p>\n
had the opportunity to see the witnesses and had accepted<\/p>\n
their version. It is always cautioned by the Apex Court that<\/p>\n
while disturbing on the finding based on evidence of witness<\/p>\n
examined before the trial court the appellate court shall be<\/p>\n
slow and unless there is substantial mis-appreciation, it shall<\/p>\n
                             : 5 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
not be disturbed. But a reading of the entire evidence would<\/p>\n
only reveal that what is stated by the applicant is true and<\/p>\n
therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the said<\/p>\n
decision. So, I hold that the applicant was an employee<\/p>\n
under the opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
      6. So far as the quantum is concerned, the applicant<\/p>\n
had sustained injuries which resulted in amputation of the<\/p>\n
little finger as well as amputation of the     phalanx of the<\/p>\n
ring finger. 12% is not excessive at all for the reason that<\/p>\n
the schedule prescribes something more.       Therefore, the<\/p>\n
total loss of earning capacity assessed at    12% is also in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.     The amount of wage shown is also<\/p>\n
reasonable and correct index is applied in awarding the<\/p>\n
amount.    Therefore on quantification of the compensation<\/p>\n
also there is no mistake.\n<\/p>\n
      7. So far as the interest is concerned, in National<\/p>\n
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha<\/a> (2008 A.C.J 886), this<\/p>\n
Court had held that an employee is entitled to get 12%<\/p>\n
interest.    In the said decision,   the Division Bench had<\/p>\n
considered the Constitution Bench rulings of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas<\/p>\n
                               : 6 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222) and in the light of the same had<\/p>\n
held that when there is a Constitution Bench decision and<\/p>\n
subsequently Division Bench rulings of the Apex Court, the<\/p>\n
decision of the Constitution Bench has to prevail.   The same<\/p>\n
has also been followed by another Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court as well by the Himachal Predesh High Court in the<\/p>\n
decision reported in New India Assurance Co. v. Budh<\/p>\n
Ram<\/a> (2009 (4) TAC 614).       Therefore the award of interest<\/p>\n
also is strictly in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
    8. Therefore, from these discussions I find that there is<\/p>\n
nothing to interfere with the        decision rendered by the<\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner that calls for<\/p>\n
interference. Whatever amount is due under the award with<\/p>\n
interest which has been paid has to be taken note of and if<\/p>\n
there is any balance, it has to be paid and if there is any<\/p>\n
excess    payment,    the claimant   has to  reimburse to the<\/p>\n
employer namely the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                    M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\ncl<\/p>\n
                        : 7 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                        : 8 :<\/span>
\nM.F.A..NO.253 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                           M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                           …………………………………….
\n                           A.S.NO.883 OF 1996
\n                           ………………………………………
\n                           13th day of August, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                           J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA.No. 253 of 2009() 1. ALIBABA,PROPRIETOR, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER, … Respondent 2. M.G.ANTOONY, S\/O.M.A.GOERGE, For Petitioner :SRI.T.I.DANIEL For Respondent :SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :03\/09\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-243507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 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\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-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=\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-28T10:51:38+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\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T10:51:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1203,\"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\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T10:51:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 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\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-28T10:51:38+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\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T10:51:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010"},"wordCount":1203,"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\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010","name":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T10:51:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alibaba-vs-the-commissioner-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alibaba vs The Commissioner on 3 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:\/\/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\/243507","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=243507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}