{"id":272267,"date":"2010-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-14T10:53:59","modified_gmt":"2015-04-14T05:23:59","slug":"mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 637 of 2006()\n\n\n1. MANGALAM PUBLICATION INDIA (PVT.)LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. BIJU VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. DESIGN DIFFERENCE, 35\/1586,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.L.SHENOY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :09\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                       P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                  &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                       RSA No.637 of 2006\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                  &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                      Dated 9th June 2010<\/p>\n<p>                             Judgment<\/p>\n<p>           The defendants, who suffered a decree at the<\/p>\n<p>hands of the lower Appellate Court, are the appellants<\/p>\n<p>herein. The parties and exhibits are hereinafter referred to,<\/p>\n<p>as they are available before the Trial Court.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">           2. It appears that the defendants had, by an<\/p>\n<p>agreement evidenced by Ext.A1, engaged the plaintiff to<\/p>\n<p>redesign their lay out and model. The work order was<\/p>\n<p>issued by the defendants through the second defendant.<\/p>\n<p>The remuneration agreed was Rs.1,75,000\/- which had to<\/p>\n<p>be paid in five instalments. According to the plaintiff, a sum<\/p>\n<p>of Rs.50,000\/- was outstanding from the defendants. In<\/p>\n<p>spite of several demands made, that was not paid and<\/p>\n<p>hence the suit was laid.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">           3. The defendants resisted the suit. One of their<\/p>\n<p>contentions was that the suit was not filed by a competent<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">RSA 637\/06                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>person and so, the suit was not maintainable.       Another<\/p>\n<p>contention was that the plaintiff was to prepare the re-<\/p>\n<p>design of the lay-out to the satisfaction of the defendants,<\/p>\n<p>but he was unable to do so. It was also contended that<\/p>\n<p>Rs.50,000\/- was to be paid only after the design was<\/p>\n<p>accepted by the defendants and therefore, they denied the<\/p>\n<p>liability to pay the said amount also. In the light of the<\/p>\n<p>above contentions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">            4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n<p>consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n<p>PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A8 from the<\/p>\n<p>side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined DW1. No<\/p>\n<p>documents were marked from their side.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">            5. The Trial Court found that the defendants are<\/p>\n<p>liable to pay the amount as per Ext.A2 agreement, but<\/p>\n<p>dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n<p>competent to file the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">            6. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n<p>AS No.184\/04 before the District Court, Kottayam. The<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">RSA 637\/06                           3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>District Court took the view that the finding of the Trial<\/p>\n<p>Court that the suit was not filed by a competent person,<\/p>\n<p>was unsustainable in law and accordingly reversed the<\/p>\n<p>Judgment and decree of the Trial Court.                    The lower<\/p>\n<p>Appellate Court also found that the appellant was entitled<\/p>\n<p>to  recover   the    amount claimed           with 6% interest.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, a decree was granted to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">          7. The substantial question of law formulated in<\/p>\n<p>the Second Appeal reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>           &#8220;A. Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in<\/p>\n<p>           holding that the suit by the plaintiff in its business name<\/p>\n<p>           is maintainable in view of Order XXX Rule 10 C.P.C.<\/p>\n<p>           Which has application only to a proprietary concern<\/p>\n<p>           being sued in its business name ?&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\n<p id=\"p_12\">          8.    The learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n<p>contended that the lower Appellate Court was not justified<\/p>\n<p>in reversing the findings of the Trial Court. It is also<\/p>\n<p>contended that there is no provision in the CPC enabling a<\/p>\n<p>proprietary concern to institute a suit in its name against<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">RSA 637\/06                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">           9. The above contention is without any basis<\/p>\n<p>whatsoever. It is well settled that a proprietary concern is<\/p>\n<p>not  a    separate    entity distinct  from   that  of  the<\/p>\n<p>proprietor\/proprietrix. It  is  always   identified by   its<\/p>\n<p>proprietors. The lower Appellate Court has referred to the<\/p>\n<p>decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/344544\/\" id=\"a_1\">Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh<\/p>\n<p>Kumar<\/a> (1998) 5 SCC 567) wherein a similar issue was<\/p>\n<p>considered and it was held that a proprietary concern is<\/p>\n<p>only a business name in which the proprietor of the<\/p>\n<p>business carries on the business and a suit by or against a<\/p>\n<p>proprietary concern is by or against the proprietor of the<\/p>\n<p>business himself.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">           10.   In the light of the above authoritative<\/p>\n<p>pronouncement by the apex court, there is no merit in the<\/p>\n<p>contentions taken by the appellants. The suit is filed by a<\/p>\n<p>competent person.      As far as the decree regarding the<\/p>\n<p>amount is concerned, both the courts have concurrently<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">RSA 637\/06                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>fond that the amount as claimed is due. That is a finding on<\/p>\n<p>facts. It is not shown that the said finding is perverse. No<\/p>\n<p>grounds are made out to interfere with the lower Appellate<\/p>\n<p>Court&#8217;s Judgment and decree. The appeal is accordingly<\/p>\n<p>dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\n\n\n\n                                P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE\n\n\n\nsta\n\nRSA 637\/06    6\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 637 of 2006() 1. MANGALAM PUBLICATION INDIA (PVT.)LTD., &#8230; Petitioner 2. BIJU VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Vs 1. M\/S. DESIGN DIFFERENCE, 35\/1586, &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW For Respondent [&hellip;]<\/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-272267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-14T05:23:59+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T05:23:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":713,\"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\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\\\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T05:23:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 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":"Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-14T05:23:59+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T05:23:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010"},"wordCount":713,"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\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010","name":"Mangalam Publication India ... vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T05:23:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangalam-publication-india-vs-ms-design-difference-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangalam Publication India &#8230; vs M\/S. Design Difference on 9 June, 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\/272267","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=272267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}