{"id":71592,"date":"2010-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-27T23:06:49","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T17:36:49","slug":"commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1576\/2007\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1576 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS, SURAT-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nP\nS SINGHVI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nYN RAVANI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)<\/p>\n
While
\n\tadmitting this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t1944 (the Act), this Court had formulated the following substantial
\n\tquestion of law :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether,
\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
\n\tjustified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the Director on
\n\tthe ground that no provision, section or rule of law was specified
\n\tin the order of the Joint Commissioner though the notice and the
\n\torder clearly and specifically mentions that the penalty is leviable
\n\tunder Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?”\n<\/p>\n
Despite
\n\tservice of notice of admission, there is no appearance on behalf of
\n\tthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts of the case stated briefly are that a show cause notice dated
\n\t13.4.2005 came to be issued by the adjudicating authority to M\/s
\n\tSagar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. as well as to the
\n\trespondent herein, viz., Shri Prakashchandra Sohanlal Singhvi,
\n\tDirector of M\/s Sagar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd., inter
\n\talia,
\n\tcalling upon them to show cause as to why the penalties should not
\n\tbe imposed on each of them separately under rule 26 of the Central
\n\tExcise Rules, 2002 (the Rules). The show cause notice culminated
\n\tinto an Order in-Original dated 28.12.2005, whereby a penalty of
\n\tRs.1,50,000\/- came to be imposed on the respondent.  The respondent
\n\tcarried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who
\n\tvide order dated 30.11.2006, dismissed the appeal. The preferred
\n\tsecond appeal before the Tribunal, who found that there was no
\n\tjustifiable reason to impose separate penalty upon the Director
\n\tespecially when no provisions\/ section\/rule of law under which
\n\tpenalties had been imposed upon the Director stood specified in the
\n\timpugned order of the Joint Commissioner and accordingly set aside
\n\tthe penalty imposed on the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tY.N. Ravani, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
\n\tthe appellant has invited attention to the order made by the
\n\tadjudicating authority and more particularly, paragraph 23 thereof,
\n\twherein the adjudicating authority has discussed the role of the
\n\trespondent herein and has held that the respondent is liable for
\n\tpenalty under rule 26 of the Rules. It is submitted that in the
\n\tcircumstances, merely because in the operative part of the order,
\n\tthere is no reference of the rule under which the penalty has been
\n\timposed on the respondent, the Tribunal was not justified in holding
\n\tthat the order of the adjudicating authority does not refer to any
\n\tprovision, section, rule of law under which the penalty had been
\n\timposed upon the Director.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tcan be seen from the order made by the adjudicating authority, the
\n\tadjudicating authority has recorded a categorical finding of fact to
\n\tthe effect that the respondent is the active Director who is looking
\n\tafter the day to day working of the Unit and has admitted in his
\n\tstatements that the goods were cleared illicitly without payment of
\n\tduty and was knowingly involved in the evasion of central excise
\n\tduty. The adjudicating authority, therefore, held that the
\n\trespondent is liable for penalty under rule 26 of the Rules. The
\n\tcontention raised on behalf of the respondent that the penalty on
\n\tthe Director cannot be imposed has been turned down by the
\n\tadjudicating authority on the ground that in this case, the evasion
\n\tof duty was masterminded and actively executed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellate authority has concurred with the findings recorded by the
\n\tadjudicating authority and has found that the respondent was
\n\tactively involved in the activities of clandestine removals and was
\n\taccordingly of the view that the penalty imposed on the Director was
\n\tjustified, and upheld the same.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTribunal, in the impugned order, has not recorded any findings as
\n\tregards the involvement of the respondent in the clandestine
\n\tremoval. Nothing has been discussed as to why the findings recorded
\n\tby the Commissioner (Appeals) are not justified and as to why the
\n\tTribunal is required to take a different view.  The Tribunal has
\n\tmerely recorded that it does not find any justifiable reason to
\n\timpose the penalty upon the Director. While holding so, what has
\n\tweighed upon the Tribunal is that no provision, section or rule of
\n\tlaw under which the penalty has been imposed upon the Director, has
\n\tbeen specified in the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner.
\n\tThese observations of the Tribunal overlook the fact that in the
\n\tbody of the Order in-Original, and more specifically in paragraph 23
\n\tthereof, the Adjudicating Authority has in fact, while considering
\n\tthe case against the respondent, held that the respondent is liable
\n\tto penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the
\n\tcircumstances, merely because there is no mention of rule 26 in the
\n\toperative part of the order, it cannot be understood to mean that
\n\tthe adjudicating authority has not specified the provisions under
\n\twhich the penalty has been imposed upon the Director.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis settled legal position that an order has to be read as a whole.
\n\tWhen the order made by the Adjudicating Authority is read as a
\n\twhole, it becomes apparent that the penalty has been imposed on the
\n\trespondent under rule 26 of the Rules. In the circumstances, the
\n\tapproach adopted by the Tribunal as well as the conclusion arrived
\n\tat by the Tribunal cannot be said to be reasonable. The impugned
\n\torder of the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the record, and as
\n\tsuch, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe light of the aforesaid discussion, the question is answered in
\n\tthe negative. The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the
\n\tpenalty imposed on the Director. The appeal is accordingly allowed
\n\tby setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, to the extent
\n\tit relates to the respondent herein. There shall be no order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
[H.B.ANTANI,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1576\/2007 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1576 of 2007 ========================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS, SURAT-I – Appellant(s) Versus P S SINGHVI – Opponent(s) ========================================= […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-27T17:36:49+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\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T17:36:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":982,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T17:36:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-27T17:36:49+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\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T17:36:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010"},"wordCount":982,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T17:36:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-despite-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Despite on 23 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/71592","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=71592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}