{"id":46445,"date":"2011-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-05T17:45:26","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T12:15:26","slug":"junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10739\/2010\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10739 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nJUNAGADH\nGYMKHANA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nASSISTANT\nPROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nBT RAO with MR SM SOJATWALA\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS E.SHAILAJA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nUNSERVED for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tHeard learned Advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe matter requires consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tRULE.  Learned Advocate<br \/>\nMs.E.Shailaja waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tAt the request of learned Advocate<br \/>\nfor the petitioner, the matter is taken up for final hearing, to<br \/>\nwhich learned Advocate for the respondent has no objection.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe matter is in a very narrow<br \/>\ncompass.  The question is as to whether the petitioner &#8211;<br \/>\nM\/s.Junagadh Gymkhana ever employed 20 persons so as to see that the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as, &#8220;the said Act&#8221;) becomes<br \/>\napplicable.  Clause-(b) of sub-section (3) of Section-1 of the Act<br \/>\nprovides for applicability of the Act which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;to any other establishment<br \/>\nemploying [twenty] or more persons or class of such establishments<br \/>\nwhich the Central Government may, by notification in the official<br \/>\ngazette, specify in this behalf:&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tLearned Advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner invited attention of the Court to page No.71.  It is order<br \/>\ndated 27.01.2004 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.<br \/>\n It is specifically mentioned in para-5 (unnumbered) of the order<br \/>\nthat:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The documents available in the<br \/>\nfile are perused.  On  going through the records it is observed that<br \/>\nthe  establishment was covered on  the basis of AEO&#8217;s report<br \/>\ndated 20.03.2003.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>4.1\t\tLearned Advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted that this report was never made available to the<br \/>\npetitioner until a specific order was obtained from the appellate<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2\t\tLearned Advocate for the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted that though relevant documents were produced<br \/>\nbefore the authority, the authority refused to look into the same on<br \/>\nthe ground that, &#8216;when opportunity was given to the petitioner, the<br \/>\npetitioner did not avail that opportunity and therefore, authority<br \/>\nclosed its eyes to the documents produced by the petitioner&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3\t\tEarlier, a Review Application<br \/>\nwas filed, but that application was filed on plain paper and hence,<br \/>\nit was returned by saying that, &#8216;Refused.  To be filed only in a<br \/>\nprescribed formate&#8217;.  When the application was filed in a prescribed<br \/>\nformate, it was rejected by the following order:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In view of the said provision<br \/>\nof the Act, I have examined the review application submitted by<br \/>\nestablishment and have gone through the order passed under section 7A<br \/>\nand observed that the establishment has not submitted any new matter<br \/>\nor evidence which may cause consideration of the review of the said<br \/>\n7A order.  The establishment was provided the opportunity to produce<br \/>\nthe documentary evidence for deciding the review application for<br \/>\nhearing the matter under Section 7B.  But the representative failed<br \/>\nto produce any documentary evidence except affidavits from the<br \/>\nemployees and from the establishment which are not sufficient to<br \/>\nreview the case.  Moreover, the review application in Form-9 was<br \/>\nreceived after the stipulated time limit of forty five days from the<br \/>\ndate of making such order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIf the authority had taken a<br \/>\nlittle pragmatic approach and had given an opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner-establishment, the matter would not have been required to<br \/>\nbe brought up to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tOn perusal of the documentary<br \/>\nevidence, produced, i.e. &#8216;Wage Register&#8217;, names of two persons,<br \/>\nviz.Mr.J.H.Vaja and Mr.P.K.Makwana are appearing twice.  Only if<br \/>\nthese names are counted twice, the number reaches to magic figure of<br \/>\n20 (twenty), otherwise the number of workers remains only only 18<br \/>\n(eighteen).\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1\t\tThis Court sees no reason for<br \/>\nthe authorities to have taken such an adamant stand in the matter and<br \/>\nto refuse to look to the evidence, even when it is brought to their<br \/>\nnotice.  It is true that Provident Fund Act is meant for the benefits<br \/>\nof the workers, but it cannot be applied to an establishment which is<br \/>\nnot fulfilling the required conditions prescribed under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tOn perusal of the papers &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Wage Register and affidavit and the provisions of law, this Court is<br \/>\nof the opinion that the authority as well as the appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nhave committed error in holding that the Act is applicable to the<br \/>\npetitioner-establishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tIn the result, the petition<br \/>\nsucceeds and the same is allowed.  Orders dated 27.01.2004 and<br \/>\n03.05.2010 are quashed and set aside.  Rule is made absolute.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Ravi<br \/>\nR.Tripathi, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*Shitole<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10739\/2010 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10739 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - 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\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T12:15:26+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\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:15:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":710,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:15:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - 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\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-05T12:15:26+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\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:15:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011"},"wordCount":710,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011","name":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:15:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-assistant-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Junagadh vs Assistant on 5 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/46445","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=46445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}