{"id":67258,"date":"2009-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-10T09:46:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T04:16:23","slug":"the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n                              Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003\n                              Date of decision:16.11.2009\n\n\nThe Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Limited, Sonepat through its managing\nDirector.                                             ... Petitioner\n\n                              Versus\n\nRajesh and another                                     ...Respondents\n\nPresent:    Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.\n                             ----\n\nII.   COCP No.348 of 2006 in CWP No.2999 of 2003.\n\n\nRajesh                                                 ...Petitioner\n                              Versus\n\n\nPrithi Singh Bishnoi, Managing Director, the Sonepat Cooperative Sugar\nMill Limited, Sonepat.                                ...Respondent\n\nPresent:    Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the respondent.\n                            ----\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN\n                              ----\n\n1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n      judgment ?\n2.    To be referred to the reporters or not ?\n3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?\n                                ----\n\nK.Kannan, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
      I.    Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003<\/p>\n
1.          The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement<\/p>\n
with back wages. The contention of the workman was that he had been
\n Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
working as a computer assistant on daily basis from 01.12.1998 to<\/p>\n
15.09.1999. He adduced evidence to the effect that a person junior to<\/p>\n
him namely, Narender was retained even after he was terminated from<\/p>\n
service. It was also his contention that the computer works for the whole<\/p>\n
year and the work was available at the establishment where the workman<\/p>\n
was working.\n<\/p>\n
2.           The management contended that the workman had worked<\/p>\n
only for 123 days and he did not produce attendance register for some<\/p>\n
months. It was elicited in cross-examination of MW-1 that the original<\/p>\n
record from January to May, 1999 was available with the management<\/p>\n
but was not produced. It was also elicited in the cross-examination of<\/p>\n
MW-1 that the computer works for the whole year and it was sought to<\/p>\n
be explained by the management that the work was done on contract<\/p>\n
basis but the so-called contract was not produced before the Labour<\/p>\n
Court, although he stated that he had brought all the records of contract<\/p>\n
before Court. The Labour Court, under such circumstances, drew an<\/p>\n
adverse inference for the non-production of the record which admittedly<\/p>\n
the management possessed and found that the contention of the workman<\/p>\n
that he had continuously worked for 240 days, stood established and<\/p>\n
granted the relief as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The learned counsel Shri Mutneja appearing for the<\/p>\n
management states that the burden of proof was always on the workman<\/p>\n
to establish that he had 240 days of continuous service and the onus will<\/p>\n
not be discharged on a mere statement in evidence by the workman.<\/p>\n
According to him, the workman would have availed of leave during the
\n Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
period which would have enabled him to secure some documentary<\/p>\n
evidence or he ought to at least produced wage slips during the relevant<\/p>\n
period when he was claiming that he was working.\n<\/p>\n
4.          The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani-(2002) 3<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 25, and states that the said decision was a clear<\/p>\n
authority for the proposition that the burden of proof could not be said to<\/p>\n
have been effectively discharged by mere assertion before the Labour<\/p>\n
Court by the workman that he had worked for 240 days. The issue that<\/p>\n
the burden of proof was on the workman to prove that he had worked for<\/p>\n
240 days of continuous service cannot be doubted at all and the said<\/p>\n
decision cannot be extended beyond stating what was clearly a<\/p>\n
fundamental principle of law.       How this burden is discharged is<\/p>\n
invariably a matter of adjudication.     In this case, the workman has<\/p>\n
asserted that he had worked for 240 days and did not merely stop there.<\/p>\n
He elicited through evidence of the management that it had the<\/p>\n
documents in its custody from January to June, 1999. The cause for non-<\/p>\n
production of the records, was not explained. There was also evidence to<\/p>\n
the effect that the work on computers was a continuous one and it was<\/p>\n
available right through the year. The Court drew an inference which was<\/p>\n
adverse to the management from the available evidence and in my view,<\/p>\n
it was perfectly justified. It will be futile to contend that the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court’s judgment must be applied in every situation to look for<\/p>\n
proof without regard to what was admitted in evidence by<\/p>\n
the management.    The inference which was drawn by the Labour Court,
\n Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
under the circumstances, was not adverse to the law laid down by the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that the workman had not worked for 240 days and that no<\/p>\n
adverse inference could be drawn as made by the Labour Court.<\/p>\n
5            The relief granted by the Labour Court was justified and the<\/p>\n
writ petition is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
II.   COCP No.348 of 2006 in CWP No.2999 of 2003<\/p>\n
6            COCP No.348 of 2006 is an application for contempt of the<\/p>\n
order dated 24.04.2003 made in Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003<\/p>\n
which directed the management to reinstate the workman and that if the<\/p>\n
petitioner (management) failed to reinstate the workman before the next<\/p>\n
date, it would forfeit the right to be heard on the merits of the case. The<\/p>\n
reinstatement was reported to have been made on 11.06.2003. The<\/p>\n
explanation given by the management for the delay was that at the end of<\/p>\n
the season, like all other workmen, he (workman) had also been<\/p>\n
discharged. The explanation given by the management is accepted and<\/p>\n
the contempt petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                         (K.KANNAN)\n16.11.2009                                                  JUDGE\nsanjeev\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003 Date of decision:16.11.2009 The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Limited, Sonepat through its managing Director. … Petitioner Versus Rajesh and another …Respondents Present: […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - 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\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-10T04:16:23+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\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T04:16:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\",\"name\":\"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T04:16:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - 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\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-10T04:16:23+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\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T04:16:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009"},"wordCount":813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009","name":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills ... vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T04:16:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sonepat-coop-sugar-mills-vs-rajesh-and-another-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills … vs Rajesh And Another on 16 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67258","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=67258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}