{"id":72405,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-22T21:05:01","modified_gmt":"2015-08-22T15:35:01","slug":"p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 29 of 2004()\n\n\n1. P.M. MAJEEB, 6\/1250, INDIAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGER, ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.SANTHARAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                  P.R.Raman &\n                       T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             R.C.R. No.29 of 2004\n                     - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                 Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008.\n\n                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This revision is filed by the landlord, aggrieved by the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside an order of<\/p>\n
eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The short facts leading to the<\/p>\n
dispute are the following:\n<\/p>\n
      2. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to ‘the<\/p>\n
Act’). He purchased the property by virtue of document No.574\/1996 of<\/p>\n
the Sub Registry, Kochi. The tenant is a co-operative society. Subsequent<\/p>\n
to the purchase, they have attorned to the landlord. The landlord contended<\/p>\n
that he bonafide requires the premises for his own occupation, i.e. for<\/p>\n
running a video shop.      He was already running a video shop in a rented<\/p>\n
premises and the landlord of the said premises demanded vacant possession<\/p>\n
of it and hence he has to shift the same to the petition schedule building.<\/p>\n
The tenant denied the bonafide need pleaded and specifically contended that<\/p>\n
the landlord is not running a video shop and the alleged landlord of the said<\/p>\n
RCR 29\/2004                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
room has not demanded any vacant possession of the premises. He has also<\/p>\n
other buildings for starting his business.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The Appellate Authority disallowed eviction on the specific<\/p>\n
finding that there is no evidence to show that the landlord is conducting a<\/p>\n
video shop in a rented premises.       It was also found that the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by him in support of the plea are totally insufficient to hold that<\/p>\n
the landlord was conducting any business as pleaded by him. It is on this<\/p>\n
ground the petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exts.A1<\/p>\n
and A2 and C1 Commission report were marked on the side of the landlord.<\/p>\n
C.P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on the side of the tenants and they have<\/p>\n
produced Exts.B1 to B3 series, B4 and B5.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner which was relied upon to<\/p>\n
prove that the landlord is conducting a business in running a video shop.<\/p>\n
The Rent Control Court          straight away accepted the report of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner to find that the landlord is doing business in          a rented<\/p>\n
premises. There is no detailed discussion of the facts and evidence of the<\/p>\n
case, in the order.   It was merely observed that the claim put forward by<\/p>\n
the petitioner deserves consideration and it is found that the petitioner is in<\/p>\n
need of the petition schedule room for his business by shifting it from the<\/p>\n
rented premises now occupied by him. The specific objection raised by the<\/p>\n
RCR 29\/2004                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant that the landlord is not doing any business, was not properly<\/p>\n
considered.\n<\/p>\n
      6. A reading of the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
shows that the entire evidence has been discussed in detail. Going by<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 report, the landlord is conducting business in a shop room bearing<\/p>\n
No.14\/2088 situated at Chullikkal Road, Chullikkal.       The Commissioner<\/p>\n
was shown a lease deed 1.11.1995 executed between the wife of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and one Shri V.T. Velayudhan Pillai. Another lease deed is of the<\/p>\n
year 1999 which is executed between the landlord and the wife of Shri<\/p>\n
Velayudhan Pillai. But no documents have been annexed along with the<\/p>\n
report of   the Commissioner or produced in evidence before the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court to show that he is doing business in a rented premises. The<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority found that if, as a matter of fact, the landlord was doing<\/p>\n
some business actually, he will be having documents regarding the payment<\/p>\n
of licence fee, receipt for payment of rent and registration of the shop under<\/p>\n
the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, etc. He did not produce the<\/p>\n
lease deed before the court to prove that he is the tenant of building<\/p>\n
No.14\/2088. Even in Ext.A1 lawyer notice issued by the landlord, he did<\/p>\n
not mention the door number of the premises at which he is alleged to be<\/p>\n
conducting his business.     The same is the case of the petition for eviction<\/p>\n
filed before the Rent Control Court also. In these circumstances, it was<\/p>\n
RCR 29\/2004                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
concluded by the Appellate Authority that the pleading regarding the place<\/p>\n
of business now being conducted by the landlord is vague.            The non-<\/p>\n
production of any documents to support the plea was also relied upon<\/p>\n
against him.      Thus, the landlord failed to prove that he is conducting<\/p>\n
video business in a rented premises.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Even though these findings have been challenged in this revision<\/p>\n
petition, we are of the view that the findings rendered by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority are based on clear analysis of the pleadings and evidence. Merely<\/p>\n
by showing two lease deeds to the Advocate Commissioner, the landlord<\/p>\n
wanted to establish that he is doing business in a rented building. Those<\/p>\n
documents have been withheld from producing before the court. The fact<\/p>\n
that he has not shown any door number in Ext.A1 notice and in the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petition shows that the pleadings are only vague. Actually, the<\/p>\n
bonafide requirement pleaded is to shift the said business. In the proof<\/p>\n
affidavit also the details regarding the building number of the rented<\/p>\n
premises, commencement of the tenancy, etc. are not stated. The name and<\/p>\n
address of his landlord is also not there. None of the rent receipts have been<\/p>\n
produced.    In the cross-examination various questions have been put<\/p>\n
challenging his claim. Apart from that, the oral evidence of the landlord<\/p>\n
also shows that his brother-in-law Shri Usman was looking after all affairs<\/p>\n
of the petition schedule building. Thus, it is a case where there is total<\/p>\n
RCR 29\/2004                           -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
failure on the part of the landlord to prove that he had been conducting a<\/p>\n
video shop in a rented premises. The landlord of the said building has also<\/p>\n
not been examined. Therefore, all these indicate clearly that the bonafide<\/p>\n
need pleaded has not been established in a cogent and convincing manner.<\/p>\n
Thus, rightly it was found that the ground under Section 11(3) has not been<\/p>\n
established. We are of the view that the evidence, as analysed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, does not support the plea of the landlord. The view<\/p>\n
taken is a plausible one and cannot be said to be perverse. In exercise of the<\/p>\n
powers of revision, we cannot substitute our own views to that of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority.    The landlord can approach the court with better<\/p>\n
particulars and cogent evidence to establish his bonafide need, if so advised.<\/p>\n
      For all these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                           ( P.R.Raman, Judge.)<\/p>\n
                                     (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 29 of 2004() 1. P.M. MAJEEB, 6\/1250, INDIAN … Petitioner Vs 1. ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM, … Respondent 2. THE MANAGER, ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM, For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN For Respondent :SRI.V.SANTHARAM The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-22T15:35:01+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T15:35:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1115,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T15:35:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-22T15:35:01+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T15:35:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":1115,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008","name":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T15:35:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-majeeb-vs-alleppey-sarvodaya-sanghom-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.M. Majeeb vs Alleppey Sarvodaya Sanghom on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72405","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=72405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}