{"id":65288,"date":"2007-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-28T08:42:09","modified_gmt":"2017-07-28T03:12:09","slug":"bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2016 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nBharat Sewa Sansthan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU. P. Electronics Corporation Limited\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2016 OF 2006<\/p>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tBharat Sewa Sansthan has filed this appeal challenging
\nthe final judgment and order dated 14.09.2004 of the learned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
\nLucknow Bench, in Writ Petition No. 3388\/2004(MS) by which
\nthe order of the learned Additional District Judge (Special
\nJudge, E.C. Act) Lucknow, dismissing the application filed by
\nthe U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred
\nto as the ‘respondent-Corporation’] under Section 8 of the
\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been set aside with
\ndirection to the learned Additional District Judge to refer the
\nmatter to arbitration and both the parties are directed to
\nappoint their Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the
\nlease agreement.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:
\nBharat Sewa Sansthan [hereinafter referred to as the
\n‘appellant-Sansthan] is a charitable society registered under
\nthe Societies Registration Act.  The main object of the
\nappellant-Sansthan is to work for the social, economic,
\neducational and cultural upliftment of the people.   The
\nappellant-Sansthan is the sole and exclusive owner of multi-
\nstoreyed building known as “Chandra Bhanu Gupta Smarak
\nNav Chetna Kendra” located at No. 10, Ashok Marg in the city
\nof Lucknow (U.P.). On 11.11.1980, the respondent-
\nCorporation took for office accommodation an area  measuring
\n14,925 square feet on the first floor of the multi-storeyed
\nbuilding of  the appellant-Sansthan on monthly rent of Rs.
\n47,760\/- @ Rs. 3.20p per square foot, which comprised (a)
\nbasic rent @ Rs. 2\/- per square foot amounting to Rs.
\n29,850\/- and (b) the balance amount of Rs. 17,910\/- @ Rs.
\n1.20p per square foot towards the ancillary services provided
\nfor the said accommodation in the form of elevators (lifts), a
\ndesignated area for parking of vehicles, lights for public and
\ncommon passages and sewerages etc. under a lease granted by
\nthe appellant-Sansthan to the respondent-Corporation on
\n01.12.1980.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt is the case of the appellant-Sansthan that in the month
\nof June, 1981 the respondent-Corporation expressed its
\nrequirement to the appellant-Sansthan for some additional
\naccommodation on the first floor of the building adjoining to
\nthe accommodation which the respondent-Corporation had
\nearlier occupied for setting up a Marketing Office and a
\nRegistered Office of M\/s Uptron India Limited, which is the
\nsubsidiary of the respondent-Corporation.  M\/s Uptron India
\nLimited was established for the manufacturing of electronic
\nequipments and components, such as the television,
\ncomputer, capacitors, process control, EPABX systems etc.  It
\nwas mutually agreed between the appellant-Sansthan and the
\nrespondent-Corporation that additional accommodation
\nmeasuring 3000 sq. ft. in area shall be leased out to the
\nrespondent-Corporation w.e.f. 25.06.1981 on a monthly rent
\nof Rs. 9,750\/- i.e. @ Rs. 3.20 per sq. ft., which comprised of (a)
\nbasic rent @ RS. 2\/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 6000\/- and\n<\/p>\n
(b) balance amount of Rs. 3750\/- @ Rs. 1.20p. per sq. ft.
\ntowards such ancillary charges as has been included in the
\ncase of the lease in respect of  the first portion of the
\naccommodation let out to the respondent-Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt is further the case of the appellant-Sansthan that the
\ntenancy of both the portions of the accommodation let out to
\nthe respondent-Corporation had continued without any
\ninterruption from the respective dates of commencement of
\nlease, subject to periodical escalation of the rent including
\nother charges on the basis of mutual agreement with the
\nresult that the consolidated monthly rent of the two portions
\nof the accommodation let out to the respondent-Corporation
\nhad risen to Rs. 79,083.75p. (Rupees Seventy nine thousand
\nand eighty three and seventy five paise only) well before
\n29.07.1999, on which day the lease was determined.  The
\nappellant-Sansthan on 10.03.2000 filed Suit No. 16\/2000 for
\neviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the
\nrespondent-Corporation in the Court of learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act) at Lucknow.  In the
\nsaid suit, the respondent-Corporation presented two
\napplications before the Trial Court before filing of the written
\nstatement.  The first application being C-12 was moved under
\nSection 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
\nshort “Arbitration Act”) and the second application No.C-17
\nwas filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code
\nfor summoning of the original lease deeds from the appellant-
\nSansthan.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C.
\nAct), Lucknow, had rejected both the above-said applications.
\nBeing aggrieved, the respondent-Corporation has assailed the
\norder of the Trial Court by way of Writ Petition before the High
\nCourt.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
\nwrit petition and held that the learned Trial Court has wrongly
\nrejected the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
\nas the subject-matter of the suit is arbitral with further
\ndirection to the learned Additional District Judge (Special
\nJudge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, to refer the matter to arbitration
\nand both the parties may appoint their Arbitrator as per the
\narbitration clause in the lease agreement.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tFeeling aggrieved, the appellant-Sansthan has filed this
\nappeal, by special leave, challenging the correctness and
\nvalidity of the impugned judgment and order of the learned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWhen the matter came up before the Court on
\n24.03.2006, this Court passed the following orders:-
\n“I.A. No. 2 of 2005 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Since this appeal pertains to a charitable
\ninstitution and appears to be an urgent
\nmatter, the appeal shall be placed on
\nBoard for expeditious final hearing on
\n11th July, 2006.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt appears from the record that the appeal was called on
\nfor hearing on 11.07.2006, when the following order came to
\nbe passed:-\n<\/p>\n
“The case was argued at length by Mr.
\nShanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel
\nfor the appellant.  We also heard reply on
\ncertain preliminary issues from Mr.
\nManoj Swarup, learned counsel for the
\nrespondents.  We also permit Mr. Manoj
\nSwarup to file additional documents in
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
In the meanwhile, the respondent  U.P.
\nElectronics Corporation Limited shall
\nhandover peaceful vacant possession of
\nthe area which was under the occupation
\nof M\/s. Uptron Limited, sub-lessee of
\nrespondent No. 1 herein, within one week
\nfrom today.  This Court will decide the
\narrears of rent payable by Uptron Limited
\nat the next hearing.  In the meantime,
\nU.P. Electronics Corporation Limited
\nshall pay entire arrears of rent for the
\nportion in their occupation at the
\nadmitted rate.\n<\/p>\n
Since some details are required, we direct
\nboth the parties to file a memo of
\ncalculation before this Court so that this
\nCourt will be in a position to pass a
\ndetailed order.  Treat this matter as part-
\nheard.\n<\/p>\n
Post this matter at 2.00 p.m. on 12th
\nJuly, 2006.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tOn 12.07.2006, this Court passed a detailed order, which
\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“After hearing both the parties, we passed the following
\norder on 11th July, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
“The case was argued at length by Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
\nlearned Senior Counsel for the appellant. We also heard
\nreply on certain preliminary issues from Mr. Manoj
\nSwarup, learned counsel for the respondent.  We also
\npermit Mr. Manoj Swarup to file additional documents in
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
In the meanwhile, the respondent U. P. Electronics
\nCorporation Ltd. shall handover peaceful vacant
\npossession of the area which was under the occupation of
\nM\/s UPTRON LTD., sub-lessee of respondent No.1
\nherein, within one week from today.  This Court will
\ndecide the arrears of rent payable by the UPTRON Ltd. at
\nthe next hearing.  In the meantime, U. P. Electronics
\nCorporation Ltd., shall pay entire arrears of rent for the
\nportion in their occupation at the admitted rate.\n<\/p>\n
Since some details are required, we direct both the
\nparties to file a memo of calculation before this Court so
\nthat this Court will be in a position to pass a detailed
\norder.  Treat this matter as part-heard.\n<\/p>\n
Post this matter at 2.00 PM on 12th July, 2006.”\n<\/p>\n
As directed Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent-Corporation placed before us a Fax Message
\nfrom U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited in regard to
\nthe total rent payable to the appellant upto 30.06.2006.
\nThe Fax Message reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“U.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD.\n<\/p>\n
Total rent payable to BSS upto  30.06.2006
\nFinancial
\nyear
\nRent
\nUIL
\nUPLC
\nTDS Paid
\n      1<\/span>
\n     2<\/span>
\n      3<\/span>
\n     4<\/span>
\n       5<\/span>
\nUpto
\n31.3.2001
\n2001-2002
\n3556068.75<\/p>\n
948285.00
\n2367966.75<\/p>\n
  558742.50
\n1188104.00<\/p>\n
  389542.50
\n218145.00<\/p>\n
  85700.00
\n2002-2003
\n 948285.00
\n  558742.50
\n 389542.50
\n  85700.00
\n2003-2004
\n 948285.00
\n  558742.50
\n 389542.50
\n  85700.00
\n2004-2005
\n948285.00
\n  558742.50
\n 389542.50
\n  85700.00
\n2005-2006
\n948285.00
\n  558742.50
\n 389542.50
\n  85700.00
\n1.04.06-\n<\/p>\n
30.6.06
\n133335.00
\n                0<\/span>
\n133335.00
\n              0<\/span>
\nTOTAL
\n8430830.75
\n5161682.25
\n3269155.50
\n  646650.00<\/p>\n
From 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 @ Rs. 44445\/- per month
\n(50% proposed to be retained)<\/p>\n
UPLC Liability  Rs.2622505.50 (payable as per area
\noccupied and approved by the Management)<\/p>\n
UPLC                   UIL
\nRent of Front Portion
\n64923.75 x 12 = Area 14925@
\nRs.4.35 per sq. ft.<\/p>\n
\n\n779085.2\n\n389542.50      389542.50\nRent of Rear Portion\n14100 x 12 = Area 3000 @ Rs. \n4.72 per sq. ft. (exclusively in \nthe use of UPTRON)\n169200\n     -                169200.00\nTotal Rent per annum\n   948285.00\n 389542.50     558742.50\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there
\nis some discrepancy in regard to the calculation of rent
\npayable as per the agreement.  We, therefore, as an
\ninterim measure, without going into the correctness of
\nthe statement now placed before us, direct the U.P.
\nElectronics Corporation Limited to pay a sum of Rs.
\n32,69.155.50 to the appellant herein within four weeks
\nfrom today.  The U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited
\nhas also deducted the tax in a sum of Rs. 6,46,650\/-.
\nThus, as per the fax message, the rent is calculated upto
\n30.6.2006.  We, therefore, direct U.P. Electronics
\nCorporation Limited to pay rent from 1st July, 2006 to the
\nappellant herein for the actual area in their occupation
\nas per the terms of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The rent shall be paid on or before 10th of every
\nsucceeding month without any default.  The respondent
\nshall hand over peaceful vacant possession to the
\nappellant herein within one week from today the portion
\nin the occupation of UPTRON India Limited, a sub-lessee
\nof respondent No.1 herein, which according to
\nrespondent no. 1 is 60% of the total area namely, 17,925
\nsq. ft.  This Court will decide the arrears of rent payable
\nby the UPTRON India Limited at the time of final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited has not paid
\nthe electricity charges and water and sewerage taxes to
\nthe authorities concerned in full.  The U.P. Electronics
\nCorporation Limited is directed to pay the entire arrears
\nto the authorities concerned within four week from today.\n<\/p>\n
This order is passed as an interim measure without
\nprejudice to the rights and contentions of both the
\nparties.  It is open to both the parties to file additional
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
Treat this matter as part-heard.  Post after six weeks for
\nreporting compliance of the aforesaid directions.
\nPendency of this appeal before this Court will not prevent
\nthe parties from settling the matter amicably.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe appeal was listed for hearing on 08.09.2006, when
\nfurther following order was recorded:-
\n“Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed
\nbefore us a fresh calculation memo with the Statement of
\nAccounts duly stamped by a Chartered Accountant.  Mr.
\nKrishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent seeks time to respond to the Memo of
\nCalculation filed now.  Three weeks’ time is granted for
\nthe purpose.  The respondent is directed to file reply to
\nthis Calculation Memo within the said time.  Parties will
\ndiscuss further in regard to the possession and re-
\nadjustment of the areas and file reply thereto.\n<\/p>\n
Further directions will be made on the next adjourned
\ndate of hearing.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. \tOn 7.11.2006, upon hearing the counsel on both sides,
\nthis Court made the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
“Memo of Understanding between the parties to this
\nappeal filed in this Court, pursuant to this Court’s order
\ndated 8.9.2006, is taken on record.  A rough sketch
\nplan is also attached to the Memo of Settlement.  Clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) of the Memo says that the respondent, namely, U.P.
\nElectronics Corporation Limited will vacate the portion
\nmarked in pink as per the map within two weeks from
\ndate of Memo of Understanding i.e. 10.10.2006.  It is
\nnow represented by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
\ncounsel for the appellant that in spite of the
\nundertaking under clause (c) of Memo of Settlement, the
\nU.P. Electronics Corporation Limited have not vacated
\nthe entire portion marked in pink and also constructed
\nwall separating the pink and green marked portion.
\nSince the undertaking has not been complied by M\/s.
\nU.P. Electronics Corporation Limited further time is
\ngiven to them to comply with the undertaking by three
\nweeks from day.  The clause (c) of the Memorandum
\nshall be complied with in full and the entire portion
\nshall be handed over to the appellant within that time
\nand also the construction of the wall shall be completed
\nin time.\n<\/p>\n
When the matter came up for hearing on 8.9.2006, the
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
\nhad sought some time to respond to the Memo of
\nCalculation filed and that three weeks’ time was granted
\nfor the purpose.  So far no response has been filed to
\nthe Memo of Calculation.  The respondent is directed to
\nfile the response to Memo of Calculation within two
\nweeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
Call after four weeks for reporting compliance.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAgain on 26.02.2007, the following order came to be
\npassed:-\n<\/p>\n
“Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
\nappellant placed before us a Statement in respect of the
\namount due in regard to 60% area occupied b y the
\nrespondent and their subsidiaries upto June, 2006.  A
\ncopy of the said Statement has also been furnished to
\nthe learned counsel for the respondent.  Post after two
\nweeks for filing response by the respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  In terms of the above extracted interim orders passed by
\nthis Court on a number of hearings, the appellant-Sansthan
\nsubmitted its statement of accounts in which a total sum of
\nRs. 95,09,467.50 has been claimed as arrears of rent for the
\nFront Block and the Tower Block, measuring 17,925 sq. ft. of
\narea, out of which a sum of Rs.32,69,155.50 in terms of
\ninterim order dated 12.07.2006 passed by this Court has been
\npaid to the appellant-Sansthan by the respondent-Corporation
\nfor 40% area in its occupation.    In addition to the arrears of
\nrent from July 1997 to June 2006, the appellant-Sansthan
\nhas claimed a sum of Rs.6,46,645.00 in regard to TDS
\nCertificates.  Further, a sum of Rs.13,38,492.43 has been
\nclaimed on account of water & sewerage tax from July 1997 to
\nJune 2006.  The appellant-Sansthan has also claimed a sum
\nof Rs.40,95,867\/- on account of  interest at the rate of 12%
\np.a. on the arrears of rent in relation to 15,925 sq. ft. area
\nwhich was let out to the respondent-Corporation in the year
\n1980.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In response to the order of this Court, the respondent-
\nCorporation has filed affidavit dated 18.11.2006 along with
\ndetails of calculations of arrears of rent of 40% area; arrears of
\nrent of 60% area and also details of calculation of amount for
\nwater & sewerage tax.  The stand of the respondent-
\nCorporation in the affidavit is that in pursuance to the interim
\norder of this Court dated 12.07.2006, a sum of
\nRs.32,69,155.50 towards arrears of rent (Rs.25,95,310.50 as
\nrent and Rs.6,73,845.00 as TDS] for the 40% portion, which
\nwas actually occupied by the respondent-Corporation, has
\nbeen paid to the appellant-Sansthan.  The respondent-
\nCorporation stated that as per its statement of calculation and
\nafter deduction of the amount already paid in pursuance to
\nthe interim order of this Court, the amount payable in respect
\nof the portion which was under occupation of M\/s Uptron
\nIndia Limited and the possession thereof has already been
\nhanded over to the appellant-Sansthan (subject to the
\nadjustment made in the MOU dated 10.10.2006) comes to
\nRs.75,47,368.50 which is more than what has been calculated
\nand indicated by the appellant-Sansthan in paragraph 6 of its
\naffidavit dated 06.09.2006 and an amount of Rs.6,46,645.00
\nis taken into account twice and shown as paid in excess.\n<\/p>\n
15.   It is also submitted that during the pendency of this case
\nand in compliance of order dated 12.07.2006, another sum of
\nRs.3,97,161.00 was also paid to the appellant-Sansthan.
\nThus, the total payment made by the respondent-Corporation
\nto the appellant-Sansthan towards water & sewerage tax
\ncomes to Rs.5,95,238.80 for the area which is in possession of
\nthe respondent-Corporation.  The respondent-Corporation
\ncontended that as per the calculation sheet annexed with the
\naffidavit-in-reply, the balance amount comes to Rs.24,558.20
\ntowards water & sewerage tax for the portion in possession of
\nrespondent-Corporation, which is also tendered to the
\nappellant-Sansthan by Cheque No.275979 dated 12.10.2006
\nof Andhra Bank, Lucknow.  The balance amount of
\nRs.9,26,763.00  towards water & sewerage tax is due in regard
\nto the portion vacated by M\/s Uptron India Limited and the
\npossession of that area has already been handed over to the
\nappellant-Sansthan.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The Divisional Incharge (Personnel), working in the
\nrespondent-Corporation in his reply affidavit to calculation
\nstatement filed by the appellant-Sansthan on 26.02.2007,
\nstates that in terms of the order dated 12.07.2006 of this
\nHon’ble Court, the entire amount is paid in respect of the
\nportion in possession of the respondent-Corporation.   The
\npossession of 60% area which was previously in use and
\noccupation of M\/s Uptron India Limited, which is a Sick
\nIndustrial Company, has already been given to the appellant-
\nSansthan and the payment of rent for the said area is not
\ncovered under the directions of this Court.   It is stated that
\nthe calculation chart submitted by the appellant-Sansthan
\nshowing the amount due and payable pertains to 60% portion
\nfor which rent was paid by M\/s Uptron India Limited through
\nthe respondent-Corporation and the first part of the
\ncalculation chart filed by the appellant-Sansthan indicating
\ntotal amount of Rs.66,74,131.50 due, is in respect of 60%
\nportion of the leased area. It is also stated that the
\nrespondent-Corporation was always ready and willing to make
\npayment of agreed rent for the portion under its occupation
\nand, in fact, it had tendered the amount, which was not
\naccepted by the appellant-Sansthan.  It is also stated in the
\naffidavit that Clause I(3) of the lease agreement as alleged by
\nthe appellant-Sansthan is not applicable in the present case
\nand as such no interest at the rate of 12%, as claimed, is
\npayable and the appellant-Sansthan has calculated the
\ninterest on total amount of rent payable in respect of total area
\nincluding the one which was under use and occupation of M\/s
\nUptron India Limited.\n<\/p>\n
17.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
\nexamined the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing
\non behalf of the appellant-Sansthan, submitted that this Court
\nin exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
\nConstitution of India for doing complete justice to the
\nappellant-Sansthan is empowered to pass an order of payment
\nof arrears towards water & sewerage tax and payment of
\ninterest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears of rent in terms
\nof the agreement.  He submitted that sending the matter at
\nthis stage to the Arbitrator will prolong the agony of the
\nappellant-Sansthan in getting its legitimate claims settled as
\nper the calculation statement submitted before this Court in
\nterms of its interim orders.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Per contra, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent-Corporation, submitted that the balance amount
\nof arrears of rent, payment of water & sewerage tax and the
\namount of interest as claimed by the appellant-Sansthan in its
\ncalculation statement cannot be decided by this Court in the
\nabsence of any satisfactory and tangible evidence appearing on
\nrecord of this appeal.  He next submitted that in terms of the
\nclause of the Agreement, this Court will be slow in exercise of
\nits jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
\nas the parties are governed by the procedure of the Arbitration
\nAct, which is speedy and less expensive for effective
\nadjudication of the dispute in issue.\n<\/p>\n
20.   We have carefully considered the respective contentions
\nof the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
21.   It is not in dispute that on 11.11.1980 the respondent-
\nCorporation took from the appellant-Sansthan an area
\nmeasuring 14,925 sq. ft. on monthly rent under a lease
\nagreement.  In June 1981, the appellant-Sansthan let out
\nadditional accommodation measuring 3000 sq. ft. area on
\nmonthly rent for setting up Marketing Office of M\/s Uptron
\nIndia Limited, which is the subsidiary of the respondent-
\nCorporation.  The appellant-Sansthan filed suit for recovery of
\narrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent-Corporation
\nfrom the demised premises.  In the trial court, the respondent-
\nCorporation preferred two applications, i.e. one under Section
\n8(1) of the Arbitration Act and second under Order XI Rule 14
\nCPC for summoning of the original lease deed from the
\nappellant-Sansthan.  The learned Additional District Judge
\n(Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, has rejected both the
\napplications.  The High Court in writ petition filed by the
\nrespondent-Corporation against the order of the trial court,
\nallowed the application of the respondent-Corporation filed
\nunder Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act.  It was the specific
\ncase of the respondent-Corporation before the High Court that
\nthe original agreements are in the possession of the appellant-
\nSansthan, whereas the stand of the appellant-Sansthan was
\nthat the original agreements are not in its possession.  The
\nrespondent-Corporation placed on record of the trial court
\nphotocopies of the agreements along with an application under
\nSection 8(1) of the Arbitration Act.  The High Court, in our
\nview, has rightly held that the photocopies of the lease
\nagreements could be taken on record under Section 8 of the
\nArbitration Act for ascertaining the existence of arbitration
\nclause.  Thus, the dispute raised by the appellant-Sansthan
\nagainst the respondent-Corporation in terms of the arbitration
\nclause contained in the lease agreement is arbitral.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Now, the question pressed before us is whether we
\nshould, in exercise of our power and jurisdiction under Article
\n142 of the Constitution of India as submitted by Shri Shanti
\nBhushan, grant the payment of balance of arrears of rent,
\npayment of balance arrears of water & sewerage tax and
\ninterest on the arrears of rent to the appellant-Sansthan,
\nwhich amounts are disputed by the respondent-Corporation
\nbefore us.  The nature and ambit of the power of this Court
\nunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India, no doubt, is
\nmeant to do complete justice between the litigating parties,
\nbut at the same time this Court has to bear in mind that the
\npower is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be
\neffectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions
\nof law.  Human and equitable approach should be balanced to
\ndo complete justice to both the parties and not be tilted in
\nfavour of either party without ignoring the statutory
\nprovisions.  This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can grant
\nappropriate relief where there is some manifest illegality, or
\nwhere there is manifest want of jurisdiction, or where some
\npalpable injustice is shown to have resulted to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
23.    In the light of above factual aspects, the claim relating to
\nbalance arrears of rent, balance arrears of water & sewerage
\ntax and rate of interest on payment of arrears of rent raised by
\nthe appellant-Sansthan in its calculation statement filed
\nbefore this Court is at variance with the calculation statement
\nsubmitted by the respondent-Corporation.  The respondent-
\nCorporation has denied the payment of interest to the
\nappellant-Sansthan.  The above-said disputed claims can be
\nappropriately tackled and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator
\nin terms of the arbitration clause.  The main objectives of the
\nArbitration Act is to make provision for an arbitral procedure
\nwhich is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of the
\nspecific arbitration and to minimise the supervisory role of
\ncourts in the arbitral process and to permit an arbitral
\nTribunal to use mediation, conciliation or other procedures
\nduring the arbitral proceedings in settlement of disputes, etc.
\netc.  This Court ordinarily will not be obliged to bypass the
\nprovisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in
\nexercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
24.   In the backdrop of this case, we do not find it a fit case to
\ngrant relief to the appellant-Sansthan as claimed by it in its
\ncalculation statement which is vehemently disputed by the
\nrespondent-Corporation.  Therefore, the contention of the
\nappellant-Sansthan that this Court can grant the payment of
\nbalance amount of arrears of rent and arrears of water &
\nsewerage tax and interest on arrears of rent detailed in
\ncalculation statement submitted before this Court, does not
\nmerit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
25.   Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, has fairly
\nstated that in Civil Suit No.16\/2000 the appellant-Sansthan
\nhas not claimed the arrears of rent and water & sewerage tax
\nfor the additional area of 2000 sq. ft., which was subsequently
\nlet out to the respondent-Corporation, as such the claim to
\nthat extent in terms of the calculation statement filed before
\nthis Court is not pressed in this appeal.  He submitted that for
\nclaiming the relief for 2000 sq. ft. area, the appellant-
\nSansthan will take appropriate proceedings before the
\nCourt\/Forum.  We do not wish to express any views on this
\naspect of the matter in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
26.   In this view of the matter, we do not find any perversity
\nor infirmity in the order of the High Court to warrant any
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
27.   For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal deserves and it
\nis accordingly dismissed.  The order of the learned Single
\nJudge dated 14.09.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.3388
\n(M\/S) of 2004 shall stand affirmed. However, the parties are
\nleft to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
28.   Before parting, we may make it clear that any observation
\nmade in this judgment shall not be construed as an
\nexpression of opinion on the merits of the case.  The dispute
\nraised by the parties shall be adjudicated upon by the
\nArbitrator(s) on its own merit in accordance with law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007 Author: L S Panta Bench: H.K. Sema, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2016 of 2006 PETITIONER: Bharat Sewa Sansthan RESPONDENT: U. P. Electronics Corporation Limited DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007 BENCH: H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-28T03:12:09+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-28T03:12:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-28T03:12:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-28T03:12:09+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-28T03:12:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007"},"wordCount":4198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007","name":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-28T03:12:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-sewa-sansthan-vs-u-p-electronics-corporation-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs U. P. Electronics Corporation … on 29 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/65288","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=65288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}