{"id":47628,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-20T23:52:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-20T18:22:43","slug":"gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 227 of 2004()\n\n\n1. GATI DESK TO DESK CARGO, 1-7-293,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE LTD.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :22\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n\n\n                                            K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n\n                               --------------------------------------------\n\n                                  C.R.P. NO.  227 OF 2004 D\n\n                               --------------------------------------------\n\n                            Dated this the 22nd February, 2008\n\n\n                                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        The revision petitioner challenges the order in I.A.No.242 of 2003 in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.93 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
North   Paravur,   which   was   filed   against   judgment   and   decree   in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.140 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Parur.<\/p>\n
There was a  delay of  273 days in filing  the  appeal.     I.A.No.242  of  2003<\/p>\n
was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.  The<\/p>\n
court   below   dismissed   the   application   as   per   the   order   dated     18th<\/p>\n
December, 2003, which is under challenge in this Revision.<\/p>\n
        2.     The   contention   of   the   revision   petitioner   is   that   he   was   not<\/p>\n
aware of   the  decree   passed   by the  trial  court   on   11.9.2002  and  that   he<\/p>\n
came to know about the decree only on 5.3.2003, when a communication<\/p>\n
was received from the respondent requesting the petitioner to satisfy the<\/p>\n
decree.  It is stated that immediately, the petitioner made arrangements to<\/p>\n
obtain certified copy of the decree.  However, the counsel did not apply for<\/p>\n
copy and only on 30.5.2003,  certified copy was applied for.   The appeal<\/p>\n
was  filed   on   10.7.2003,   though   the   certified   copy   was  received   in  June,<\/p>\n
2003.  The court below held that the reasons are not sufficient to condone<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.227 OF 2004<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  2  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe   delay.     The   reason   stated     for   dismissing   the   application   is   that   an<\/p>\n
affidavit sworn to by the counsel was not filed and that the reason stated<\/p>\n
by the petitioner that the counsel failed to inform about the decree passed<\/p>\n
by the trial court is not a reason for condoning the delay.   Having found<\/p>\n
that the reason stated is not a reason which is capable of being accepted,<\/p>\n
the   court   below   could   not   have   naturally   expected   an   affidavit   of   the<\/p>\n
counsel.  Even if such an affidavit is filed, for the reason already stated by<\/p>\n
the court below, the delay could not be condoned by it.<\/p>\n
         3.   It is true that the affidavit of the counsel is not filed.   It is also<\/p>\n
true that failure  on the part of the counsel to inform the petitioner about<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the suit, strictly speaking, is not  a ground for condoning<\/p>\n
the   delay.     It   is   to   be   noted   that   the   petitioner   is   having   his   office   at<\/p>\n
Secunderabad  and  naturally they have to rely on their advocate.    There<\/p>\n
was   lapse   on   the   part   of   the   advocate   and   it   was   so   stated   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the affidavit accompanying the application.   The court below<\/p>\n
could have, according to me, allowed the application on terms so that the<\/p>\n
inconveniences   caused   to   the   respondents   are,   to   some   extent,   taken<\/p>\n
care of.    By disposal of  the appeal on the merits, no prejudice could be<\/p>\n
caused to the respondents.   The prejudice caused to the respondents is<\/p>\n
only in the matter of delay.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, I<\/p>\n
am of the view that the application can be allowed on terms.<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.227 OF 2004<\/p>\n
                                            ::  3  ::\n<\/p>\n
        For the reasons stated above, the order impugned is set aside and<\/p>\n
I.A.No.242 of 2003 in A.S.No.93 of 2003 is allowed on condition that the<\/p>\n
petitioner   shall   deposit   before   the   court   below,   for   payment   to   the<\/p>\n
respondents,  a sum of  Rs.3,500\/- as costs, within a period of six weeks<\/p>\n
from today.   If  the petitioner fails to deposit  the costs, the Civil Revision<\/p>\n
Petition shall be treated as dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (K.T.SANKARAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
ahz\/<\/p>\n
        K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
  C.R.P.NO. 227 OF 2004 D<\/p>\n
              O R D E R<\/p>\n
       22nd February,  2008<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 227 of 2004() 1. GATI DESK TO DESK CARGO, 1-7-293, … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., … Respondent 2. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE LTD. For […]<\/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-47628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-20T18:22:43+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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T18:22:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":608,\"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\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T18:22:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-20T18:22:43+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":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T18:22:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":608,"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\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008","name":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T18:22:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gati-desk-to-desk-cargo-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gati Desk To Desk Cargo vs M\/S.United India Insurance … on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/47628","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=47628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47628\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}