{"id":6499,"date":"1997-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997"},"modified":"2017-12-21T08:58:45","modified_gmt":"2017-12-21T03:28:45","slug":"m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","title":{"rendered":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 (44) DRJ 272<\/div>\n
Author: M Siddiqui<\/div>\n
Bench: M Siddiqui<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the  Additional District  Judge, Delhi who while accepting appeal of the  respondents  has, inter  alia, fixed the ratable value of the property bearing No.  10196\/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The respondents are joint owners of the property bearing No  10196\/65, M.M.  Road, Motia Khan, Delhi and the same was assessed at a ratable  value of  Rs. 36,740\/- for the year 1978-79. It appears that the respondents  let out  the first and second floors of the property at a monthly rent  of  Rs. 7,712.10  with  effect from 1.10.1978 and the basement at  Rs  6,000\/-  per month  with  effect from 1.2.1979. Consequently,  the  Assessing  Authority issued notice (Annexure A) to the respondents proposing a ratable value  of Rs.  1,58,350\/-  for the year 1978-79. Objections (Annexure B)  were  filed against  the proposed enhancement of the ratable value. On  24.9.1982,  the Assessing  Authority  passed the order (Annexure C)  revising  the  ratable value  to Rs. 1,58,350\/- as proposed Aggrieved by the said order,  the  respondents  filed  appeal before the A.D.J. who While accepting  the  appeal fixed the ratable value of the property at Rs. 36,740\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The learned A.D.J. has set aside the assessment order (Annexure C)  on the  ground that since the standard rent under Section 6 of the Delhi  Rent Control Act has not been determined in respect of the property in question, ratable value of the tenanted portion of the property can’t be fixed on the basis of agreed rent and the ratable value fixed earlier shall be deemed to have  been  fixed on the basis of standard rent under Section 9(4)  of  the Delhi  Rent  Control Act. In my opinion, the view taken by  the  Additional District Judge runs counter to the well established principles of determining  ratable value of a property. It is well settled that in respect  of  a building  subject to rent control legislation the landlord cannot claim  to recover  from the tenant anything more than the standard rent and his  reasonable expectation must therefore be limited by the measure of the  standard  rent recoverable by him, and respect of a building not subject to  any such  rent control legislation, the actual rent payable by a tenant to  the landlord would reliable evidence of what the landlord reasonably expect  to get from a hypothetical tenant. (Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC, (1990)  1 SCC  685; Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D.,  Asstt. G.M.,  Central Bank of India<\/a> v. Commissioner Municipal Council . Now the  question is : what would be the standard rent of the tenanted  portion of the premises in question determinable under the provisions of the  Delhi Rent Control for the assessment year 1978-79. “Standard rent” is defined in Section  2(k) to mean the standard rent referred to in section 6  or  where the standard rent has been increased under Section 6, such increased  rent. Section  6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act lays down different formulae  for determination  of  standard  rent according to  different  situations.  The provisions  applicable  for determination of standard rent in the  case  of residential premises are set out in Clause (A) of Sub-section (1) and there also  I am concerned only with Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) because  first and  second  floors  of the premises were let out for  the  first  time  on 1.10.1978 and the basement was let out for the first time on 1.12.1979 and, therefore,  under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of  the  Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent of Rs. 7,712.10 p. per month would be the standard  rent of the first, second floors of the premises in question  for  the period  of five years form 1.10.1978 for the assessment year  in  question. The basement was let out on 1.12.1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000\/-  and therefore under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6, of  Sub-section (2)  of Section 6, the rent of Rs. 6,000\/- per month would be the  standard rent  of  the basement for the period of 5 years, from  1.12.1979  for  the assessment  year in question. (Sheila Kaushik v. I.T.  Commissioner,  Delhi ).\n<\/p>\n
 4. In  this case, the Assessing Authority had rightly assessed the  petitioner  on the basis of the agreed rent which under Clause (b) of  Sub-sec-tion  (2)  of  section 6, shall be deemed to be the standard  rent  of  the tenanted portion of the premises in question for a period of five years and the  contrary  view  taken by the learned Additional  District  Judge  with regard to non-applicability of the aforesaid provision is wholly erroneous. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has committed a patent illegality  in setting aside the ratable value determined by the  Assessing Authority with regard to the tenanted portion of the premises in question.\n<\/p>\n
 5. So far as determination of the ratable value of self-occupied  portion of the premises is concerned the Assessing Authority has committed a  grave error  in fixing the same under Sub-section (4) of section 9 of  the  Delhi Rent control Act. In the case of Balbir Singh (supra) it was held that  the ratable value of a building, whether tenanted or self-occupied, is  limited by  the measure of standard rent arrived at by the Assessing  Authority  by applying  laid down in Section 6, and Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of  D.R. Act will be attracted only if it is not possible to determine the  standard rent on the principles set out in Section 6. It therefore follows that  the standard rent even in cases of self-occupied premises has to be  determined on the principles set out in Section 6 and that would constitute the  upper limit  of the ratable value of the premises. Having determined  such  upper limit the Assessing Authority may in appropriate cases scale down the  same by  taking into account the size situation, locality and condition  of  the premises and the amenities provided therein.\n<\/p>\n
 6. In  the  instant  case the Assessing Authority has  not  assessed  the premises  in  question, on the basis of standard rent determinable  on  the principles set out in Section 6. On the contrary, ratable value of the said portion of the premises has been assessed under Sub-section (4) of  Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In Dr. Balbir Singh’s case (supra), it was held that” it is only where for any reason, it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in Section  6 that the standard rent may be fixed under Sub-section (4) of Section 9. The relevant  paragraph of the judgment for the sake of ready reference  is  as under:\n<\/p>\n
   “It  is  indeed strange that Assessing  Authorities  should  have  declined  to assess the ratable value of 494 properties in  South  Delhi  on the basis of standard rent determinable on the  principles  laid down in Sub-section (1) (A)(2)(b) of Section 6  merely  on  the ground that in the opinion of the  Assessing  Authorities  “the  assessees  failed to produce the  documentary  evidence  as  regards  the aggregate amount of reasonable cost of  construction  and  the  market price of land comprised in the premises  on  the  date  of  commencement  of the construction.”  If  the  assessees  failed  to  produce  the documentary evidence  to  establish  the  reasonable  cost  of construction of the premises or  the  market  price  of the land comprised in the premises, the  Assessing  Authorities  could arrive at their own estimate of these  two  constituent  items in the application of the principles set  out  in  Sub-section  (1)(A)(2)(b)  or (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6.  But  on  this  account the Assessing Authorities could not justify  resort  to Sub-section (4) of Section 9. It is only where for any  reason  it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises  on  the principles set-forth in Section 6 that the standard  rent  may  be fixed under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 and  merely  because  the owner does not produce satisfactory  evidence  showing  what  was the reasonable cost of construction of the premises  or  the  market price of the land at the date of commencement of  the  construction, it cannot be said that it is not possible to determine  the standard rent on the principles set out in  Sub-section  (1)(A)(2)(b)  or  (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6. Take for  example  a  case  where  the  owner produces evidence which is  found  to  be  incorrect  or which does not appear to be satisfactory;  can  the  Assessing Authorities in such a case resort to sub-section (4) of  Section 9 stating that it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in Sub-section (1)(A)(2)(b) or  (1)(B)(2)(b)  of  Section  6 ? The  Assessing  Authorities  would  obviously  have to estimate for themselves, on the basis of  such  materials  as  may be gathered by them, the  reasonable  cost  of  construction and the market price of the land and arrive at their  own  determination of the standard rent. The is an exercise  with  which the Assessing Authorities are quite familiar and it is  not  something  unusual for them or beyond their competence and  capability.  It  may be noted that even while  fixing  standard  rent  under  Sub-section  (4) of Section 9, the  Assessing  Authorities  have  to  rely on such material as may available  with  them  and  determine  the standard rent on the basis of such material  by  a  process of estimation.”\n<\/p>\n
 7. For  the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 18.5.1983  passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi is hereby set aside. The assessment order  dated 24.9.1982 of the Assessing Authority so far as it  relates  to the assessment of self-occupied portion of the premises in question is  set aside.  The Assessing Authority shall proceed to assess the rateable  value of  self-occupied portion of the premises in question afresh in  accordance with the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case (supra). No  order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 Equivalent citations: 1998 (44) DRJ 272 Author: M Siddiqui Bench: M Siddiqui JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi who while accepting appeal of the respondents has, inter alia, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - 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\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-21T03:28:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T03:28:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\",\"name\":\"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T03:28:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - 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\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-21T03:28:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T03:28:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997"},"wordCount":1625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997","name":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T03:28:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-d-vs-inder-raj-sethi-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C.D. vs Inder Raj Sethi on 24 November, 1997"}]},{"@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\/6499","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=6499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}