{"id":247085,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-14T03:09:14","modified_gmt":"2015-01-13T21:39:14","slug":"mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                        Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-44554 of 2007\n                                      Date of Decision: August 12, 2008\n\n\nMangat Ram\n                                                        .....PETITIONER(S)\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\n\n\nAnju Aggarwal\n                                                       .....RESPONDENT(S)<\/pre>\n
                              .      .     .\n\n\nCORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA\n\n\nPRESENT: -      Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate,\n                for the petitioner.\n\n                Mr. Parminder P. Sharma, Advocate,\n                for the respondent.\n\n\n\n                              .      .     .\n\n\nAJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)\n\n<\/pre>\n
                This petition has been filed under Section<\/p>\n
482   Cr.P.C.     for      quashing        complaint       No.13     dated<\/p>\n
16.4.2005\/   19.4.2005            (Annexure      P-1)     titled     ‘Anju<\/p>\n
Aggarwal vs. Mangat Ram’ and order of summoning dated<\/p>\n
15.12.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Sunam.\n<\/p>\n
                The   undisputed         facts   are    that   the    very<\/p>\n
cheque that is subject matter of the complaint filed<\/p>\n
for commission of offence under Sections 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, `the Act’)<\/p>\n
was dishonoured and notice dated 20.12.2004 was issued
\n Crl. Misc. No. M-44554 of 2007                                            [2]<\/p>\n
as    is    required        under      Section        138(b)        of    the        Act.<\/p>\n
Thereafter complaint was not filed.\n<\/p>\n
                   The cheque was presented by the respondent<\/p>\n
again. The cheque was again dishonoured and the present<\/p>\n
complaint has not only been filed but also entertained<\/p>\n
and the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial.<\/p>\n
                   In the complaint, the fact that the cheque<\/p>\n
was earlier dishonoured and notice was served, has also<\/p>\n
not been mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
                   Learned        counsel       for     the      petitioner           has<\/p>\n
relied on M\/s Prem Chand Vijay Kumar vs. Yash Pal Singh<\/p>\n
& Another, 2005(4) SCC 417 (Para 8 and 14). Reference<\/p>\n
has also been made to Krishna Exports vs. Raju Dass,<\/p>\n
2006(2)      RCR    (Criminal)         672     (Para       3)    and     Sadanandan<\/p>\n
Bhadran       vs.       Madhavan         Sunil        Kumar,<\/a>        1998(4)           RCR<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 90 (Para 8).\n<\/p>\n
                   Learned          counsel          appearing            for         the<\/p>\n
respondent has not been able to dispute the facts as<\/p>\n
given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Learned      counsel        for      the      respondent,          however,           has<\/p>\n
pointed out that on oral request having been made, the<\/p>\n
cheque was again presented.\n<\/p>\n
                   I have considered the arguments addressed<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
                   The     issue       has     been       considered            in    the\n\nfollowing judgments.\n\n                   In    M\/s      Prem       Chand      Vijay       Kumar's          case\n\n<\/pre>\n
(supra), the following has been held in Para 8 and 14:-<\/p>\n
                   “8. But once he gives a notice under clause (b) of Section
\n                   138, he forfeits such right in case of failure of the drawer to
\n Crl. Misc. No. M-44554 of 2007                                                [3]<\/p>\n
                  pay the money within the stipulated time, he would be liable
\n                  for offence and the cause of action for filing the complaint
\n                  will arise.\n<\/p>\n
                          xx     xx      xx      xx      xx      xx      xx<\/p>\n
                  14,. In Sil Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters,
\n                  Bangalore,<\/a> 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 658 (SC) : 1999(4) SCC
\n                  567, it was held that the language used in Section 142 admits
\n                  of no doubt that the magistrate is forbidden from taking
\n                  cognizance of the offence if the complaint was not filed
\n                  within one month of the date on which the cause of action
\n                  arose. Completion of the offence is the immediate forerunner
\n                  of rising of the cause of action. In other words, cause of
\n                  action would arise soon after completion of the offence and
\n                  period of limitation for filing of the application starts
\n                  simultaneously running”\n<\/p>\n
\n                  In     Krishna         Exports’         case        (supra),         the<\/p>\n
following has been held in Para 3:-\n<\/p>\n
                      “3. This judgment which has been followed in the
\n                  subsequent decisions supports the appellant’s contention.
\n                  Faced with this difficulty the learned counsel for the
\n                  respondent submits that the first notice dated 15.2.1995 is
\n                  really not a notice contemplated by clause (c) of the proviso
\n                  to Section 138 and it cannot be construed to have given rise
\n                  to a cause of action to file the complaint. According to the
\n                  learned counsel for the respondent, the earlier notice was only
\n                  in the nature of a communication which does not spell out in
\n                  clear terms a demand to make the payment. We find it
\n                  difficult to accept the contention. On a reading of the letter
\n                  dated 15.2.1995, it is plainly clear that the respondent
\n                  required immediate payment of the amount of cheque to be
\n                  arranged failing which he threatened to take legal action in
\n                  the matter. The said letter certainly qualifies itself as a notice
\n                  within the contemplation of clause (c) of the proviso to
\n                  Section 138. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned
\n                  Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the
\n                  complaint after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by
\n                  clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act. The proceedings taking
\n                  cognizance and issuance of the process are, therefore, liable
\n                  to be quashed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  In Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra), it<\/p>\n
has been held in Para 8:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “”8. Besides the language of Sections 138 and 142 which
\n                  clearly postulates only one cause of action there are other
\n                  formidable impediments which negates the concept of
\n                  successive cause of action. One of them is that for dishonour
\n                  of one cheque there can be only one offence and such offence
\n                  is committed by the drawer immediately on his failure to
\n                  make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the
\n Crl. Misc. No. M-44554 of 2007                                             [4]<\/p>\n
                  notice served in accordance with clause (b) of the proviso to
\n                  Section 138. That necessarily means that for similar failure
\n                  after service of fresh notice on subsequent dishonour the
\n                  drawer cannot be liable for any offence nor can the first
\n                  offence be treated as non est so as to give the payee a right to
\n                  file a complaint treating the second offence as the first one.
\n                  At that stage it will not be a question of waiver of the right of
\n                  the payee to prosecute the drawer but of absolution of the
\n                  drawer of an offence, which stands already committed by him
\n                  and which cannot be committed by him again.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Provisions of Section 138(b) of the Act<\/p>\n
require the holder of the cheque to make a demand for<\/p>\n
the payment of the cheque amount within 30 days of<\/p>\n
receipt of information by him from bank regarding the<\/p>\n
return of the cheque as unpaid. This was done vide<\/p>\n
notice dated 20.12.2004. Under Section 138(c) of the<\/p>\n
Act,    in    case     of    non     payment        by     drawer       of       cheque,<\/p>\n
complaint is required to be filed within 15 days of<\/p>\n
receipt of notice which however was not done by the<\/p>\n
respondent.        Sections        138     to    142     of     the     Act,       being<\/p>\n
complete Code, in relation to dishonour of cheque, the<\/p>\n
contention that orally a request was made, cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
                  In    view       of    the     above,       the     petition        is\n\nallowed.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  Complaint No.13 dated 16.4.2005\/ 19.4.2005<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-1) titled ‘Anju Aggarwal vs. Mangat Ram’<\/p>\n
and order of summoning dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-3)<\/p>\n
passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam<\/p>\n
are hereby quashed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                                                      (AJAI LAMBA)\nAugust 11, 2008                                                          JUDGE\navin\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-44554 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 12, 2008 Mangat Ram …..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Anju Aggarwal …..RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: – Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-13T21:39:14+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\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-13T21:39:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":992,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-13T21:39:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-13T21:39:14+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\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-13T21:39:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":992,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008","name":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-13T21:39:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-ram-vs-anju-aggarwal-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangat Ram vs Anju Aggarwal on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247085","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=247085"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247085\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}