{"id":58915,"date":"2011-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"modified":"2014-01-24T13:58:36","modified_gmt":"2014-01-24T08:28:36","slug":"a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/09\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10479 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\nA.Abdul Kareem                   ... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,\n  (Ministry of Labour and Employment)\n  Government of India)\n  SCOPE MINAR,\n  Cire-II, 4th Floor Lakshmi Nagar District Centre,\n  Lakshmi Nagar,\n  New Delhi-110 092.\n\n2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\n  Lady Dock College Road,\n  Madurai-625 002.\n\n3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\n  43-P\/1, Trivandram Road,\n  Palayankottai,\n  Tirunelveli-627 002.           ... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to issue a Writ of  Certiorari,  to call for the records of the\n1st respondent made in his proceedings in ATA No.834(13)2003, dated 31.03.2010\nconfirming the order of the third respondent made in proceedings in\nTN\/24769\/SRO\/TNY\/PDC(1)\/2003, dated 24.09.2003 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner\t     ... Mr.S.Silambannan\n                         for M\/s.Profexs Associates\n^For R2 and R3       ... Mr.K.Murali Shankar\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, passed under section 14-B of<br \/>\nthe Employees&#8217; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952<br \/>\n[hereinafter referred to as &#8216;Act&#8217;] has approached this court, with a prayer for<br \/>\nissuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quash the demand notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The petitioner is in the business of manufacture of beedies, and was<br \/>\nissued license on 9.1.1991.  The petitioner commenced the manufacture of beedies<br \/>\nfrom 29.07.1991.  The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to exemption from the<br \/>\noperation of the Act, for the period of three years, under section 16(1)(d) of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.However, the petitioner chose to get himself covered.  The petitioner<br \/>\nmade an application to the respondents for coverage of his establishment from<br \/>\nAugust 1991, and requested for issuance of code number for remittance of the<br \/>\ncontribution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Instead of granting code number to the petitioner, he was advised to get<br \/>\nsub-code number TN\/20221-A, as his brother was doing the same business, and was<br \/>\ncovered under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The petitioner did not accept the allotment of sub code, and requested<br \/>\nfor allotment of independent code number, on the ground that his business was<br \/>\nindependent from that of his brother.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The request of the petitioner was accepted, and he was allowed code<br \/>\nNo.TN-24769, vide letter, dated 1.04.1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner deposited the contribution<br \/>\nwithin the period stipulated i.e., within 45 days of the allotment of the code<br \/>\nnumber. The petitioner was thereafter issued a notice in the year 1994, for<br \/>\nimposing damages under section 14-B of the Act, for the delay in deposit of<br \/>\ncontribution for the period 8\/91 to 2\/92, as the petitioner was covered with<br \/>\neffect from 2nd August 1991, as requested by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, but, no order was<br \/>\npassed, and another notice was issued in the year 1997, because of the<br \/>\nbifurcation of Madurai division.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice again, then he<br \/>\nwas communicated the order, dated 19th December 1991, imposing damages, under<br \/>\nsection 14-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed under 14-B of the<br \/>\nAct, challenged it, before the learned Employees&#8217; Provident Fund Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal, New Delhi.  The appeal was also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The reason for dismissal of the appeal, is that the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner, that he could not deposit the contribution for want of code number<br \/>\ncould not be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order<br \/>\nprimarily on the ground that the provisions of the Act, were not applicable to<br \/>\nthe establishment of the petitioner, as he was entitled to exemption under<br \/>\nsection 16 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t`13.It was the request of the petitioner, that he be covered. Therefore,<br \/>\nin absence of automatic coverage, till the allotment of code number, it was not<br \/>\npossible to deposit contribution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition,<br \/>\nby contending that the facts pleaded show that the petitioner was informed, that<br \/>\nhe could use the sub code of his brother for depositing the contribution and<br \/>\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was handicapped in depositing<br \/>\nthe contribution within time, to challenge the imposition of damages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further contends that<br \/>\nthe brand of the beedies manufactured by the petitioner, and his brother are the<br \/>\nsame, therefore, one code would have been sufficient for both of them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.The order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal can be sustained,<br \/>\nonly in case the establishment of the petitioner was covered under the Act, by<br \/>\noperation of law. Once, the petitioner was not covered under the Act, and the<br \/>\nrequest was made for coverage, then, establishment could be covered under the<br \/>\nAct only after the allotment of the code number.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.It is not disputed that the contributions were deposited within time<br \/>\nstipulated, and there was no delay in deposit. The imposition of damages under<br \/>\nsection 14-B on the face of it is, therefore, without jurisdiction and  not<br \/>\nsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that an<br \/>\noffer for sub code was made, cannot justify, the imposition of damages under<br \/>\nsection 14-B of the Act, as it is not disputed that the request of the<br \/>\npetitioner for allotment of independent code was accepted by the department, and<br \/>\nnew code number was allotted on 1st April 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that as both<br \/>\nthe brothers, are manufacturing the beedies under the same brand also cannot<br \/>\nadvance the case of the respondents, as it is establishment,  which is covered<br \/>\nare not brand. Admittedly, the establishment of both the brothers are different<br \/>\nand allotted different code  number.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.  The impugned orders are<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/09\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.10479 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.Abdul Kareem &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, (Ministry of Labour and Employment) Government of India) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 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\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-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=\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-24T08:28:36+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\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-24T08:28:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":830,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\",\"name\":\"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-24T08:28:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 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\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-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":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-24T08:28:36+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\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-24T08:28:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"},"wordCount":830,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011","name":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-24T08:28:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-abdul-kareem-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Abdul Kareem vs Employees Provident Fund &#8230; on 7 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/58915","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=58915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}