{"id":56202,"date":"2009-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-28T06:58:45","modified_gmt":"2015-09-28T01:28:45","slug":"smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V. A. Naik<\/div>\n<pre>                                        1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:\n                           NAGUR BENCH: NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.3884\/2001\nPETITIONER:\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n      Smt. Maya w\/o Vasudeo Meshram, aged about 40 years, r\/o 132, Bada Indora,\n      Near Buddha Vihar, Nara Road, Nagpur.\n                                      VERSUS\nRESPONDENTS:\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n      Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Admn) Civil Lines, Nagpur.\n============================================================\nShri Manoj Pillai, advocate for the petitioner\nSmt. Sharda Wandile, AGP for respondents\n\n\n\n                                           \n============================================================\nCORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>DATE: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009<\/p>\n<p>ORAL JUDGMENT<br \/>\n     By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial<\/p>\n<p>Court Nagpur on 1.11.2001 allowing the revision application filed by the respondent<\/p>\n<p>and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 18.9.1995 in complaint<\/p>\n<p>ULPA No.217\/1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>2]   The petitioner was working as a daily wager in the Sales Tax Department. The<\/p>\n<p>respondent had terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a<\/p>\n<p>complaint against her termination before the Labour Court, Nagpur. The Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court granted temporary reinstatement to the petitioner by order dated 2.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since the order was not complied, a criminal complaint under section 48 of the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:20:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>M.R.T.U. &amp; P.U.L.P. Act 1971 was filed by the petitioner. The court convicted the<\/p>\n<p>respondents by an order dated 28.7.1999 for non compliance. In the meanwhile, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was reinstated in service on 30.4.1998. The Labour Court finally decided<\/p>\n<p>the matter on 18.9.1995 by allowing the complaint and reinstating the petitioner in<\/p>\n<p>service. A revision was preferred against the order dated 18.9.1995 by the<\/p>\n<p>respondent before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. The Industrial Court, Nagpur by the<\/p>\n<p>order dated 1.11.2001 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court by quashing and setting aside the order of the Labour Court, dated 18.9.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>3]    Shri Manoj Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the<\/p>\n<p>Industrial Court was not justified in entertaining the revision after a lapse of almost<\/p>\n<p>four years from the passing of the judgment by the Labour Court on 18.9.1995. The<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason stated by the respondent<\/p>\n<p>for not preferring the revision application within a reasonable time was not<\/p>\n<p>sufficient and the Industrial Court ought to have dismissed the revision filed by the<\/p>\n<p>respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the peculiar<\/p>\n<p>facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court was not justified in<\/p>\n<p>allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:20:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>4]    Smt. Sharda Wandile, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents<\/p>\n<p>supported the order passed by the Industrial Court on 1.11.2001 and submitted that<\/p>\n<p>due to bonafide reasons the matter was not defended before the Labour Court<\/p>\n<p>though there were good grounds for opposing the complaint filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned AGP submitted that after the notice of the complaint was received, the<\/p>\n<p>respondent had asked for sanction \/permission to appoint a private counsel and since<\/p>\n<p>that permission was awaited, nothing could be done in the matter before the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court. According to the learned AGP all these facts have been rightly considered by<\/p>\n<p>the Industrial Court and the order passed by the Industrial Court remanding the<\/p>\n<p>matter to the Labour Court is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>5]    I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have<\/p>\n<p>perused the impugned order dated 1.11.2001. On perusal of the same, it appears that<\/p>\n<p>it would not be proper for this court to interfere with the order passed by the<\/p>\n<p>Industrial Court on 1.11.2001 in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Industrial Court<\/p>\n<p>considered the reason for the delay in filing the revision, as also the reason for non<\/p>\n<p>appearance before the Labour Court to grant one more opportunity to the respondent<\/p>\n<p>to defend the case, before the Labour Court. The Industrial Court observed that the<\/p>\n<p>respondent desired to take a plea of absence of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:20:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>decide the matter and also of the ansence of continuous rendering of services for<\/p>\n<p>240 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, it<\/p>\n<p>would not be proper for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the<\/p>\n<p>Industrial Court in entertaining the revision and remand the matter to the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court for granting an opportunity to the respondent to defend the matter. Though it<\/p>\n<p>is necessary to grant opportunity to the respondent to prosecute the matter before the<\/p>\n<p>Labour Court for the inaction on the part of the respondent to diligently prosecute<\/p>\n<p>the case, it would be necessary in the fitness of things to impose some costs on the<\/p>\n<p>respondents. The respondents, therefore, are liable to pay costs of Rs.3000\/- to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner within a period of three months. Since the petitioner is working as daily<\/p>\n<p>wager with the respondents since 30.4.1998, the respondents should continue the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner as daily wager till the complaint is decided by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>6]     Order accordingly. No order as to costs.\n\n\n\n                                                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\nSMP.\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:20:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009 Bench: V. A. Naik 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3884\/2001 PETITIONER: Smt. Maya w\/o Vasudeo Meshram, aged about 40 years, r\/o 132, Bada Indora, Near Buddha Vihar, Nara Road, Nagpur. VERSUS [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-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>Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - 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\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-28T01:28:45+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\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T01:28:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":762,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T01:28:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - 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\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-28T01:28:45+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\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T01:28:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009"},"wordCount":762,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009","name":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T01:28:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-maya-vs-assistant-commissioner-of-sales-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Maya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Sales &#8230; on 25 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/56202","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=56202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}