{"id":26588,"date":"1999-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999"},"modified":"2015-10-21T17:29:21","modified_gmt":"2015-10-21T11:59:21","slug":"p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 IVAD Delhi 981, 80 (1999) DLT 126, (1999) 123 PLR 25<\/div>\n
Author: S Kapoor<\/div>\n
Bench: S Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 S.N. Kapoor, J. <\/p>\n
1.     This  order  shall dispose of an application under Order XXII  Rule  X
\nread  with Section 151 of the CPC filed in a suit for permanent  injunction restraining  passing  off and infringement of copyright, rendition  of  accounts or profits and delivery etc. <\/p>\n
2.   The  plaintiffs  S\/Sh.P.L. Lamba and Sunil Lamba claimed to  be  joint proprietors of the trademark “KWALITY” under registration Nos.435340,435341 and  435342 in class…..According to the claim of the applicants, on  14th October,1994,  the trademark “KWALITY” under the said  three  registrations had  been assigned, transferred and sold by the plaintiffs to M\/s.  Digital Securities  Pvt. Ltd.,135, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay. On  15th  November, 1994  the  assignee applied on Form TM-24 to have the  assignment  recorded before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was allowed vide order dated  6th August,  1997. Accordingly, the name of the subsequent proprietor had  also been  advertised  in the Trademark Journal dated 1st  November,  1997.  The plaintiffs have also obtained certificates for use in legal proceedings  in respect of trademark Nos. 435340,435341 and 435342. M\/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India  Limited, Calcutta has been appointed licensed user of the  trademark
\nby  M\/s. Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. vide agreement dated  31st  December, 1994  vide Annexure-2. Hence, prayer for substituting M\/s. Digital  Securities  Pvt. Ltd. as plaintiff No.1 in place of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as  the new proprietor of the trademark “KWALITY” and M\/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. as plaintiff No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  application  is  being opposed on the ground that  there  was  no completed  assignment in favour of the alleged assignee as much as no  such assignment  has been recorded in the trademarks register under  the  provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (hereinafter called the “Act”  for short)  and the Rules framed thereunder. There was no valid trademark.  The assignment  is subject to rectification application Nos. DEL-635,  636  and 637 filed by M\/s. Ghai Ice Cream (Pvt). Ltd., which are pending before  the Registrar  of Trademarks. The assignment deed was based on fraudulent  settlement.  It is further contended by the defendants that the suit has  been filed  after  the rectification applications have been  filed  against  the plaintiffs by suppressing the material facts of filing rectification applications  by making specific averment that no rectification  application  is pending. This fact was suppressed in view of the earlier split  ssignment. The  assignment amounts to trafficking in trademark and is  against  public interest in terms of Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Act. Provisions of Order XXII,  Rule  X, CPC are not applicable and only provisions under  Order  I, Rule  X, CPC could apply at the most. The assignment being per se  illegal, the  plaintiffs could not be substituted at all, for Section 44(2)  of  the Act clearly stipulates not to record assignment of disputed trademark.  The facts of this case relevant for passing the order under Order XXII, Rule X,
\nCPC  are different from the facts of Suit No. 633\/94. Since the  rectification  proceedings  are pending, no benefit can be taken by relying  on  the order  passed in Suit No. 633\/94. Complete details of the  assignment  deed have  not been given, for strategic alliance agreement has not been  filed. The  assignment deed is neither properly stamped in view of the  consideration  of  Rs. 3.70 crores nor it is signed by the alleged assignee  nor  it discloses  proper verification thereof. Though the alleged assignment  took place on 14th October, 1994, but substitution application has been filed in April,  1996 after a long delay. On the aforesaid grounds it  is  submitted that the application as such is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
4.   I  have  heard Learned Counsel for the parties and  gone  through  the record.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In so far as the delay is concerned, there is no doubt about the  fact that  if  the assignment took place as early as on 14th  October,  1994  in ordinary course such an application for substitution should have been moved in the year 1994 itself. But it also appears from the provisions of Section 44(2)  of the Act that”…a document or instruction in respect of which  no entry  has  been made in the register in accordance with  Sub-section  (1), shall not be admitted in evidence by the Registrar or any Court in proof of title  to the trademark by assignment or transmission unless the  egistrar
\nor  the Court, as the case may be, otherwise directs,” It  appears,  therefore, that so long the assignment was not entered in the register of  trade marks in accordance with Section 44(1), the application could not have been maintained.  Consequently,  such  an application for  substitution  on  the ground of assignment could be made only after 6th August, 1997 when T.M. 24 was  allowed. As such, the plea regarding delay of the assignment does  not have much force for the time till 6th August, 1997 has to be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Insofar  as  the question of rectification proceedings  is  concerned,
\nfilling  of the rectification proceedings itself does not debar the  filing or  pursuing with the suit. However, insofar as the objection  relating  to trafficking  in the trademark by assignment is concerned, in the  light  of the provisions of Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Act, it would be  appropriate that these objections should be allowed to be raised by the  defendantsafter substitution of M\/s. Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
7.   As  regards the substitution of M\/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd.  is concerned, it does not appear that at any stage they have been recorded  as registered users under section 48. The simple licence would not create  any right in their favour, for it is just a permissible use and not an  assignment of the trademark. Consequently, the matter would not be covered  under Order XXII, Rule X, CPC. However, it may be desirable to implead them under Order  I, Rule X, CPC, for the licensee company shall be the  sole  licence user  of the said trademark during specified time and area as the  licensee
\ncompany has a licence to use the said trademark as mentioned in Clause  (1) of the licence deed. Since some right would accrue in favour of this company also during the pendency of the suit, accordingly I feel that the prayer to implead M\/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. should also be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Ld. Counsel for the defendant relies upon Allah Jawaya Vs. Lajpat Rai, AIR  1925 Lahore 574 and submits that in this case also the  assignment  is disputed  and the application has been made years after the assignment.  In that  case, assignment did not relate to trade mark and the Court  was  not debarred  from  taking note of such an assignment as has been  provided  by Section 44(2) of the Act. Besides, a imilar application IA No. 10020\/95 in S.  No.  633\/94  between the same parties has been allowed  and  no  appeal appears  to have been filed against that order. Therefore,  this  objection has no force.\n<\/p>\n
9.   For  the  aforesaid  reasons, IA No. 3227\/96  is  allowed  accordingly without  any prejudice to the rights of the defendants. The defendants  are at liberty to take all connected objections. The plaintiffs are directed to file  amended plaint incorporating all the facts relating to the  substitution within four weeks. On filing the amended plaint, the defendants  shall file amended written statement within four weeks thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
10.  List  the matter on 14 July, 1999 before the regular Bench as per  the roster.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 IVAD Delhi 981, 80 (1999) DLT 126, (1999) 123 PLR 25 Author: S Kapoor Bench: S Kapoor JUDGMENT S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order XXII Rule X read […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - 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-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-21T11:59:21+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\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T11:59:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1236,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\",\"name\":\"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T11:59:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - 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-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-21T11:59:21+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\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T11:59:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999"},"wordCount":1236,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999","name":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T11:59:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-lamba-ors-vs-avtar-kishan-ghai-ors-on-25-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.L. Lamba & Ors. vs Avtar Kishan Ghai & Ors. on 25 May, 1999"}]},{"@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\/26588","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=26588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}