{"id":76320,"date":"2007-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-11-22T12:33:39","modified_gmt":"2015-11-22T07:03:39","slug":"salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated : 4.10.2007\n\nCoram :-\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\nand\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN\n\nTax Case (Appeal) No. 1304  of 2007\n\nSalem Steel Company\nNo.83, Arcot Road\nRajeswarai Nagar\nPorur, Chennai 600 116.\t\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\n\n\t\t\t\tVs\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nChennai. \t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tTAX CASE (APPEAL) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench dated 4.5.2007  made in I.T.A.Nos.1916 \/Mds\/2005 for the assessment  year 2002-03.\n\n\n\t\t\t\tFor Appellant : Mr.T.N.Seetharaman\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
( JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J )<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal  is filed  against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal  made in I.T.A.No.1916 \/Mds\/2005 seeking admission  on the following substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in merely upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income  Tax (Appeals) without giving any  independent reasoning or finding on the issue raised before it ?\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the addition to Gross Profit without considering the contention  that the appellant had furnished its return of income for the year based on Books of Account duly audited under Section 44AB of the Act and no defects or omissions were found in the books of Account in the course of the  assessment proceedings by the assessing officer ?”\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as wholesale dealer in cement.  In respect of the assessment  year 2002-03, the assessee filed its return admitting total  income of Rs.8,62,790\/-. A survey  under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises  of the assessee on 18.3.2002 just  13 days prior  to go for completion of  accounts. At the time of survey, it was found that  the accounts were maintained in the computer and    as against the various entries posted in the computer,  primary evidence in the form of  vouchers or receipts  were not available. Further,  it was   also stated  at the time of survey that   an accounting data entry operator was  working  on the computer, but no accounts were produced before the assessing authority.   It is stated that  no documents were produced before the assessing authority  even on the next day of survey or within a reasonable time of  15 days either  in the correct computerised format or manual accounts with relevant primary evidence.  Hence, the assessing Officer took the view that  the print out of account books were produced only during the assessment proceedings long after the date of survey taking enough time to make convenient entries.   It was also found that  the assessee was not in the habit of  maintaining  the statutory accounts in the course of business but conveniently entering into the computer after the close of the year making only necessary entries to suit its convenience. On the face of these facts,  the assessing authority found that  the Gross profit as per the computer data on the date of survey was nowhere near the profit shown to the department. Considering the same,   the assessing authority went in  for comparable cases,  where the gross profit rate was admitted to be around at 4%  to 6% and proceeded to estimate the Gross  profit of the assessee  at 4% as against the  gross profit disclosed by the assessee at 2.77%.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Aggrieved by the  same,  the assessee  filed an appeal before the appellate authority,  the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who  went into the question  of  estimation as well as on  the maintenance of accounts.  The appellate authority found that there was no  legal infirmity in the assessment proceedings and that  the  assessing officer was justified in  rejecting the book results and estimating the gross profit at 4% of the turn over as against 2.77% declared by the assessee by  placing reliance on the similar comparable cases.  The appellate authority found that the gross profit  in the case of the appellant worked out to 5.157% and in the case of M\/s.MRL Agencies it worked out  5.872% and there was  difference  of .715%.  It was found that the contention of the  assessee to ignore the aforesaid difference of .715%  might not be of much help to the assessee  on the ground that the  appellant has several advantages over the other  comparable cases.  In these circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the  assessing  authority and thereby dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t 4. The assessee went on further  appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who after  confirming the order of the   Commissioner of Income Tax  (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the  there was no  infirmity in the order of the authorities below and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly   increased the gross profit by .7.15%.  Accordingly the Tribunal  dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.  The correctness of the said order is now put in issue before this Court by framing  the substantial questions of law as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
\t 5. Learned counsel appearing  for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal  erred in   not dealing with the various grounds raised in the appeal and the arguments advanced at the time of hearing regarding rejection of  books of account.   He submitted that   the Tribunal has not  considered   the various grounds raised in the appeal in the judicial manner.   Learned counsel appearing for the  appellant  placed reliance on the decision in SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL CO. P. LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (263 ITR 5), wherein this Court  remanded the matter to the  Appellate Tribunal for  fresh  consideration of the specific  issue alone and sought for similar reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. We have gone  through the  judgment of this Court, wherein one of the contentions raised by the assessee  was that  the Tribunal had not dealt with the  specific issue  raised in the appeal. This Court  after going  into the grounds taken in the appeal came to the  conclusion that the matter merited  remand for
\nfresh consideration by the Tribunal.  We do not find any justification to  extend the decision  to the benefit of the  assessee in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t 7. A perusal of the assessment  order  clearly shows that the assessing officer had pointed out categorically that  the accounts of the assessee had not been  maintained regularly and properly supported by basic materials.    The survey was conducted  in the fag end of the accounting year only to point out that the statutory accounts maintained in the  Company were incomplete  or not updated for several months.  The books of accounts were incomplete. Huge discrepancies were noticed during the survey which remained unexplained.  There were no contemporary evidence to support the data produced at the time of survey.  Consequently,  the assessing officer went for comparison of cases similar to that of the assessee and ultimately  came to the conclusion that the gross profit   admitted by the  assessee at 2.77% could not be accepted.  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)  found  that the  difference   of .715%  has to be added in the gross profit  of the assessee   on the basis of the comparable  cases produced by the assessee and the relative advantage that the assessee enjoyed  over others.  In the Circumstances,  rightly  the Tribunal  held that there was no  infirmity  in the order of the Commissioner of  Tax (Appeals) in arriving at the  gross profit.  The Tribunal ultimately upheld  the order of the   authorities below . Considering the analytical manner, in which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has considered the  case, the Tribunal rightly confirmed the findings on facts. As the issue involved is one of  fact,  we do not find any justification  to accept the plea of the assessee that the  Tribunal  had not independently considered the claim of the assessee to pass an order.  Considering the nature of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260A and there being no question of law arising out of the impugned order  of the Tribunal, we do not find any grounds to admit  the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find  any  reason to  entertain the tax case appeal and the same  is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
krr\/<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Assistant Registrar,
\n   Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, III Floor, Rajaji
\n   Bhavan, Besant Nagar,
\n   Madras 90 (with records five copies).\n<\/p>\n
2. The Secretary,
\n   Central Board of Revenue,
\n   New Delhi (3 copies).\n<\/p>\n
3. The Income Tax Officer,
\n   Ward -1(4),
\n   Tambaram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 4.10.2007 Coram :- The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1304 of 2007 Salem Steel Company No.83, Arcot Road Rajeswarai Nagar […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSalem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 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\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-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=\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-22T07:03:39+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-22T07:03:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1306,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-22T07:03:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 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":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 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\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-22T07:03:39+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-22T07:03:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007"},"wordCount":1306,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007","name":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-22T07:03:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/salem-steel-company-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Salem Steel Company vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 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\/76320","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=76320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}