{"id":34815,"date":"2002-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002"},"modified":"2015-06-24T23:21:03","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T17:51:03","slug":"technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 184, 2002 (64) DRJ 282<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  J.D. Kapoor, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Respondent NO. 3 who is the member of the<br \/>\npetitioner society file a claim petition under Section 60<br \/>\nof the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act (in short &#8220;DSC<br \/>\nAct&#8221;) with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies sometime<br \/>\nin 1993. The matter was referred for adjudication to the<br \/>\nArbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. There were three claims preferred by Respondent<br \/>\nNo. 3. Firstly that the actual cost of the flat allotted<br \/>\nto him was escalated by 27% in comparison to the estimated<br \/>\ncost and that the cost of the flat is not based on the<br \/>\nbasis of actual area of the flat between the mainsliding<br \/>\ndoor and the peripheral outside walls. Second claim was<br \/>\nthat there were number of defects in the flat allotted to<br \/>\nhim and therefore the petitioner society may be directed<br \/>\nto get the said defects removed and to reconcile the cost<br \/>\nof the flat. Third grievance was against levying penal<br \/>\ninterest on call money by the petitioner society.<br \/>\nAccording to the petitioner since there is no provision in<br \/>\nthe society&#8217;s bye-laws in this regard nor had the society<br \/>\narranged any loan the question of levying penal interest<br \/>\ndid not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The stand taken by the petitioner society was<br \/>\nthat construction was started in January, 1990 and the<br \/>\nplans were approved by the General Body and therefore at<br \/>\nthis stage it is not open to the respondent to raise any<br \/>\ndispute regarding designing of flats and that at the time<br \/>\nof construction no member knew as to which kind of flat<br \/>\nwill be allotted to him. As regards penal interest, the<br \/>\npetitioner-society pleaded that resolution in this regard<br \/>\nwas passed in General Body meeting on 24.2.1992<br \/>\nunanimously approving the revised cost estimates and penal<br \/>\ninterest @ 24% on default amount from 1.3.1992 was also<br \/>\napproved. As regards defects in flat of respondent No. 3,<br \/>\nthe petitioner society had agreed to remove those defects<br \/>\nafter respondent No. 3 took possession of the flat.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The Arbitrator allowed all the three claims vide<br \/>\naward dated 22.3.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The petitioner-society took the appeal before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated<br \/>\n8.7.1996. Through this petition award as well as order of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal have been challenged. however, during the<br \/>\ncourse of argument it was pointed by learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe society that there are dues towards maintenance<br \/>\ncharges for six years apart from penal interest and other<br \/>\ndues amounting to Rs. 3,55,675.48 payable by respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Reconciliatory effort were made. However, as<br \/>\nregards the claim of R-3 that the actual cost of flat was<br \/>\nescalated by 25% and the cost of flat is not based on the<br \/>\nactual area of the flat between the mainsliding door and<br \/>\nthe peripheral outside walls, we find no force as the<br \/>\ndesigning of the flats were duly approved by the General<br \/>\nBody of the Society and it was not open to any member to<br \/>\nhave choice of a particular flat as the same was to be<br \/>\nallotted after the draw of lots. R-3 did not raise any<br \/>\nobjection as to the designing of the flats and to raise it<br \/>\nafter completion of the construction is unacceptable. It<br \/>\nwas not expected from the society to provide various plans<br \/>\nof the flats once the General Body had approved the<br \/>\ndesigns and plans of the flats. This itself tantamount to<br \/>\nfurnishing of the information as to the designs and plans<br \/>\nof the flats. Similarly, the revised cost estimate was<br \/>\nalso approved by the General Body. So was the resolution<br \/>\nregarding the penal interest to be charged at the rate of<br \/>\n24% on defaulted amount w.e.f. 1st March 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Merely because there was no provision in the<br \/>\nbye-laws of the society to charge penal interest does not<br \/>\nmean that the society was not entitled to the same once<br \/>\nthe General Body had passed the resolution. May be this<br \/>\nresolution was a measure to compel the members to make the<br \/>\npayments regularly and avoid defaults in making the<br \/>\npayments. the members who persistently defaulted in<br \/>\nmaking the payments cannot be allowed to enjoy the same<br \/>\nfruits as those who make the payments regularly. Such a<br \/>\nprovision is to curb the tendency of the members to make<br \/>\nthe payments of the Installments as they wished and not as<br \/>\nper the requirement. It is due to the defaulted members<br \/>\nthat the construction of the flats delayed and the<br \/>\ninterest of those who are regular in making the payments<br \/>\nare put in jeo pardy. Thus there was nothing wrong in<br \/>\npassing such a resolution and charging the penal interest.<br \/>\nHowever, the claim of the society that it is entitled to<br \/>\nrecover the maintenance charges from the date of allotment<br \/>\nof flat in question was rightly declined. Society has<br \/>\nadmitted that the flat in question suffered few defects<br \/>\nwhich the society undertook to remove. The member is not<br \/>\nexpected to take possession of the flat the moment it is<br \/>\nallotted to him if it suffers from various defects. The<br \/>\nobligation of the society is to allot the flat free of<br \/>\ndefect and in perfect condition. In the instant case<br \/>\nthere were about 43 defects. Until and unless those<br \/>\ndefects were removed the member was not expected to take<br \/>\nthe possession. Once the member takes possession of the<br \/>\nflat then he has to keep on chasing the society for<br \/>\nremoving the defects and in that eventuality the member is<br \/>\nalways at the receiving end. Thus the society was<br \/>\nentitled to charge maintenance charges only from the date<br \/>\nof possession of the flat. Though the claim as to the<br \/>\nmaintenance charges is a counter claim of the society yet<br \/>\nin order to decide the matter once for all the<br \/>\nreconciliatory efforts made by us have made both the<br \/>\nparties to abide by the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The society will not be entitled to<br \/>\nclaim any penal interest from R-3 and R-4. R-3<br \/>\nshall make payment of maintenance charges from<br \/>\nthe date of possession till date within one<br \/>\nmonth of this order&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid<br \/>\nterms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 184, 2002 (64) DRJ 282 Author: J Kapoor Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Respondent NO. 3 who is the member of the petitioner society file a claim petition [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - 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\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-24T17:51:03+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\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T17:51:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1018,\"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\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T17:51:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - 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\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-24T17:51:03+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\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T17:51:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002"},"wordCount":1018,"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\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002","name":"Technology Cooperative Group ... vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. ... on 1 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T17:51:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/technology-cooperative-group-vs-presiding-officer-delhi-coop-on-1-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Technology Cooperative Group &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Delhi Coop. &#8230; on 1 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/34815","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=34815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34815\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}