{"id":79485,"date":"2005-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-11T04:40:19","modified_gmt":"2017-08-10T23:10:19","slug":"management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6593 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nManagement Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School \n\nRESPONDENT:\nShri Vijay Kumar and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5143\/2005<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tJudgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
\nCourt holding that the Delhi School Tribunal (in short the
\n‘Tribunal’) while hearing appeal of a dismissed employee of
\nthe appellant-school preferred under Section 8(3) of the
\nDelhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short the ‘Act’) was
\nnot required to refer the appeal to an arbitrator on an
\napplication being filed before it by the management of the
\nschool under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and
\nConciliation Act, 1996 (in short the ‘Arbitration Act’) is
\nunder challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tFactual position is almost undisputed and it is
\nunnecessary to set out the details.  In a nutshell the same
\nis as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tManaging Committee of an un-aided minority institution
\nis the appellant. The respondent No.1- Vijay Kumar
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ’employee’) was working as
\nan Assistant Teacher in the school known as Montfort Senior
\nSecondary School (hereinafter referred to as the ‘School’).
\nDisciplinary action was taken against him and by order dated
\n4.5.2000 the Managing Committee terminated his services.
\nAgainst the order of termination, an appeal was preferred
\nbefore the Tribunal under Section 8(3) of the Act. The
\npresent appellant filed an application under Section 8(1) of
\nthe Arbitration Act for reference to an arbitrator. The
\nTribunal dismissed the application by its order dated
\n7.6.2001. The same was challenged in a writ petition filed
\nbefore the Delhi High Court and a learned Single Judge by
\nthe impugned judgment upheld the view of the Tribunal and
\ndismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeal, it was submitted that Chapter
\nV of the Act applies to un-aided minority schools and
\nSection 15 of the Act deals with contract of service. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(e) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 deals with arbitration
\nof dispute arising out of any breach of contract between the
\nemployee and the managing committee with regard to certain
\naspects. It is submitted that clause (e) of sub-Section (3)
\nof Section 15 clearly makes arbitration mandatory. As per
\nthe requirement of Section 15 the school is legally bound to
\nenter into a written contract of service with every
\nemployee. Since there is a specific provision for an
\narbitration and there is no dispute that a written contract
\nof service was entered into, the Tribunal was in law
\nrequired to refer the matter to an arbitrator. The Service
\nRules for the staff of the school govern the conditions of
\nservice.  They are called “Montfort School Staff Rules”
\n(in short ‘Staff Rules”) and have come into effect from
\n1st July, 1974. Reference is made to Rule 24 dealing with
\nCode of Conduct and Rule 31 containing an arbitration
\nclause. Chapter IV of the Act deals with terms and
\nconditions of service of recognized private schools. Section
\n12 of the Act states that the provision of Chapter IV is not
\napplicable to un-aided minority schools. Though Section 12
\nof the Act was held to be discriminatory and void in Frank
\nAnthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of
\nIndia and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 311) and The Ahmedabad St.
\nXaviers College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and
\nAnr. (AIR 1974 SC 1389), yet effect of Section 15 cannot be
\ndiluted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.
\nTherefore, considering the importance of the matter
\ninvolved, we requested Mr. P.S. Narasimha to assist the
\nCourt as Amicus Curiae. He has placed various provisions of
\nthe Act and referring to decisions in Frank Anthony and St.
\nXaviers cases (supra), he submitted that the decision of a
\nlearned Single Judge does not require any interference.
\nAccording to him full effect has to be given to both Chapter
\nIV and V.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the rival submissions the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act need to be noted. While
\nChapter IV prescribes various statutory rights, privileges
\nand remedies for the employees of private aided schools,
\nChapter V is restricted in its operation and enables
\ncreation of contractual rights with the employees of the
\nunaided minority schools. The remedy for enforcing the
\ncontractual right is provided in Section 15(3) (e) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 8(3), Section 11 and Section 15 read as under:\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(3):- Any employee of a recognized
\nprivate school who is dismissed, removed or
\nreduced in rank may, within three months
\nfrom the date of communication to him of
\nthe order of such dismissal, removal or
\nreduction in rank, appeal against such
\norder to the Tribunal constituted under
\nSection 11.\n<\/p>\n
Section 11 :- Tribunal <\/p>\n
1.\t The Administrator shall, by
\nnotification, constitute a Tribunal, to be
\nknown as the ” Delhi School Tribunal”
\nconsisting of one person:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that no person shall be so
\nappointed unless he has held office as a
\nDistrict Judge or any equivalent judicial
\noffice.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIf any vacancy, other than a temporary
\nabsence, occurs in the office of the
\npresiding officer of the Tribunal, the
\nAdministrator shall appoint another
\nperson, in accordance with the provisions
\nof this section, to fill the vacancy and
\nthe proceedings may be continued before
\nthe Tribunal from the stage at which the
\nvacancy is filled.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Administrator shall make available
\nto the Tribunal such staff as may be
\nnecessary in the discharge of its
\nfunctions under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
4. All expenses incurred in connection
\nwith the Tribunal shall be defrayed out of
\nthe Consolidated Fund of India.\n<\/p>\n
5. The Tribunal shall have power to
\nregulate its own procedure in all matters
\narising out of the discharge of its
\nfunctions including the place or places at
\nwhich it shall hold its sitting.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Tribunal shall for the purpose of
\ndisposal of an appeal preferred under this
\nAct have the same powers as are vested in
\na court of appeal by the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and shall also
\nhave the power to stay the operation of
\nthe order appealed against on such terms
\nas it may think fit.\n<\/p>\n
Section 15:- Contract of Service<\/p>\n
1.\tThe managing committee of every unaided
\nminority school shall enter into a
\nwritten contract of service with every
\nemployee of such school;\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided that if, at the
\ncommencement of this Act, there is no
\nwritten contract of service in relation
\nto any existing employee of an unaided
\nminority school, the managing committee
\nof such school shall enter into such
\ncontract within a period of three months
\nfrom such commencement;\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further that no contract
\nreferred to in the foregoing proviso
\nshall vary to the disadvantage of any
\nexisting employee the term of any
\ncontract subsisting at the commencement
\nof this Act between him and the school.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA copy of every contract of service
\nreferred to in sub-section (1) shall be
\nforwarded by the managing committee of
\nthe concerned unaided minority school to
\nthe Administrator who shall, on receipt
\nof such copy, register it in such manner
\nas may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tEvery contract of service referred to in
\nsub-section (1)shall provide for the
\nfollowing matters namely:\n<\/p>\n
(a)the terms and conditions of service of
\nthe employee, including the scale of pay
\nand other allowances to which he shall be
\nentitled;\n<\/p>\n
(b)the leave of absence, age of
\nretirement, pension and gratuity  or
\ncontributory provident fund in lieu of
\npension and gratuity, and medical and
\nother benefits to which the employee shall
\nbe entitled;\n<\/p>\n
(c)the penalties which may be imposed on
\nthe employee for the violation of any Code
\nof Conduct or the breach of any term of
\nthe contract entered into by him;\n<\/p>\n
(d)the manner in which disciplinary
\nproceedings in relation to the employee
\nshall be conducted and the procedure which
\nshall be followed before any employee is
\ndismissed, removed from service or reduced
\nin rank;\n<\/p>\n
(e)arbitration of any dispute arising out
\nof any breach of contract between the
\nemployee and the managing committee with
\nregard to<\/p>\n
(i)\tthe scales of pay and
\nother allowances.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)leave of absence, age of
\nretirement, pension, gratuity,
\nprovident fund, medical and
\nother benefits.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)any disciplinary action
\nleading to the dismissal or
\nremoval from service or
\nreduction in rank of the
\nemployee.\n<\/p>\n
(f)any other matter which, in the opinion
\nof the managing committee ought to be or
\nmay be specified in such contract.\n<\/p>\n
As noted above, Section 15 specifically applies to un-aided
\nminority schools. Rule 31 of the Staff Rules is   also of
\nsome relevance and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“If the employee feels aggrieved against the
\ndecision of the disciplinary committee or of
\nthe Managing Committee, he has right to
\nappeal to the arbitrator, appointed as such
\nby the society. His decision shall be final
\nand binding on both parties”.\n<\/p>\n
\tSections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration Act are also
\nrelevant and read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 5 – EXTENT OF JUDICIAL
\nINTERVENTION.\n<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
\nother law for the time being in force, in
\nmatters governed by this Part, no judicial
\nauthority shall intervene except where so
\nprovided in this Part.\n<\/p>\n
8- POWER TO REFER PARTIES TO ARBITRATION
\nWHERE THERE IS AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.\n<\/p>\n
(1) A judicial authority before which an
\naction is brought in a matter which is the
\nsubject of an arbitration agreement shall, if
\na party so applies not later than when
\nsubmitting his first statement on the
\nsubstance of the dispute, refer the parties
\nto arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The application referred to in sub-
\nsection (1) shall not be entertained unless
\nit is accompanied by the original arbitration
\nagreement or a duly certified copy thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Notwithstanding that an application has
\nbeen made under sub-section (1) and that the
\nissue is pending before the judicial
\nauthority, an arbitration may be commenced or
\ncontinued and an arbitral award made.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 2(4) of the Arbitration Act embraces statutory
\narbitration within the ambit of arbitration agreement over
\nwhich the provisions of the Act are applicable. Reading of
\nRule 31 of the Staff Rules and Section 2(4) makes it clear
\nthat a statutory arbitration agreement was entered into
\nbetween the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Frank Anthony’s case (supra) it was held in
\nparagraphs 3, 13, 20 and 21 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“3. The attack of the petitioner against
\nSection 12 of the Delhi Education Act was
\nbased on Article 14 while the provisions were
\nsought to be sustained by the respondents on
\nthe basis of Article 30 of the Constitution.
\nWhile it was argued by Mr Vaidyanathan,
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that
\nSection 12 was hit by Article 14 and that
\nSections 8 to 11 did not, in any manner,
\nimpinge upon Article 30 of the Constitution,
\nit was argued, on behalf of the respondents,
\nby the learned Additional Solicitor-General
\nand by Shri Frank Anthony, that the
\nclassification made by Section 12 was
\nperfectly valid and that, but for Section 12,
\nSections 8 to 11 would have to be held to
\ninterfere with the right guaranteed by
\nArticle 30 to religious and linguistic
\nminorities to administer educational
\ninstitutions of their choice and Sections 8
\nto 11 would consequently be inapplicable to
\nsuch minority educational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
13. Thus, there now appears to be a general
\nand broad consensus about the content and
\ndimension of the Fundamental Right guaranteed
\nby Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The
\nright guaranteed to religious and linguistic
\nminorities by Article 30(1) is twofold, to
\nestablish and to administer educational
\ninstitutions of their choice. The key to the
\narticle lies in the words “of their own
\nchoice”. These words indicate that the extent
\nof the right is to be determined, not with
\nreference to any concept of State necessity
\nand general societal interest but with
\nreference to the educational institutions
\nthemselves, that is, with reference to the
\ngoal of making the institutions “effective
\nvehicles of education for the minority
\ncommunity or other persons who resort to
\nthem”. It follows that regulatory measures
\nwhich are designed towards the achievement of
\nthe goal of making the minority educational
\ninstitutions effective instruments for
\nimparting education cannot be considered to
\nimpinge upon the right guaranteed by Article
\n30(1) of the Constitution. The question in
\neach case is whether the particular measure
\nis, in the ultimate analysis, designed to
\nachieve such goal, without of course
\nnullifying any part of the right of
\nmanagement in substantial measure. The
\nprovisions embodied in Section 8 to 11 of the
\nDelhi School Education Act may now be
\nmeasured alongside the Fundamental Right
\nguaranteed by Article 30(1) of the
\nConstitution to determine whether any of them
\nimpinges on that fundamental right. Some like
\nor analogous provisions have been considered
\nin the cases to which we have referred. Where
\na provision has been considered by the Nine
\nJudge Bench in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College
\nv. State of Gujarat [(1975) 1 SCR 173], we
\nwill naturally adopt what has been said
\ntherein and where the Nine Judge Bench is
\nsilent we will have recourse to the other
\ndecisions.\n<\/p>\n
20. Thus, Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5)
\ndo not encroach upon any right of minorities
\nto administer their educational institutions.
\nSection 8(2), however, must, in view of the
\nauthorities, be held to interfere with such
\nright and, therefore, inapplicable to
\nminority institutions. Section 9 is again
\ninnocuous since Section 14 which applies to
\nunaided minority schools is virtually on the
\nsame lines as Section 9. We have already
\nconsidered Section 11 while dealing with
\nSection 8(3). We must, therefore, hold that
\nSection 12 which makes the provisions of
\nChapter IV inapplicable to unaided minority
\nschools is discriminatory not only because it
\nmakes Section 10 inapplicable to minority
\ninstitutions, but also because it makes
\nSections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 9 and 11
\ninapplicable to unaided minority
\ninstitutions. That the Parliament did not
\nunderstand Sections 8 to 11 as offending the
\nfundamental right guaranteed to the
\nminorities under Article 30(1) is evident
\nfrom the fact that Chapter IV applies to
\naided minority institutions and it cannot for
\na moment be suggested that surrender of the
\nright under Article 30(1) is the price which
\nthe aided minority institutions have to pay
\nto obtain aid from the government.\n<\/p>\n
21. The result of our discussion is that
\nSection 12 of the Delhi School Education Act
\nwhich makes the provisions of Chapter IV
\ninapplicable to unaided minority institutions
\nis discriminatory and void except to the
\nextent that it makes Section 8(2)
\ninapplicable to unaided minority
\ninstitutions. We, therefore, grant a
\ndeclaration to that effect and direct the
\nUnion of India and the Delhi Administration
\nand its officers, to enforce the provisions
\nof Chapter IV except Section 8(2) in the
\nmanner provided in the chapter in the case of
\nthe Frank Anthony Public School. The
\nmanagement of the school is directed not to
\ngive effect to the order of suspension passed
\nagainst the members of the staff.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn St. Xaviers’ case (supra) the following observation
\nwas made, which was noted in Frank Anthony’s case (supra):\n<\/p>\n
“A regulation which is designed to prevent
\nmal-administration of an educational
\ninstitution cannot be said to offend clause
\n(1) of Article 30.  At the same time it has
\nto be ensured that under the power of making
\nregulation nothing is done as would detract
\nfrom the character of the institution as a
\nminority educational institution or which
\nwould impinge upon the rights of the
\nminorities to establish and administer
\neducational institutions of their choice.
\nThe right conferred by Article 30(1) is
\nintended to be real and effective and not a
\nmere pious and abstract sentiment; it is a
\npromise of reality and not a teasing
\nillusion.  Such a right cannot be allowed to
\nbe whittled down by any measure masquerading
\nas a regulation.  As observed by this Court
\nin the case of Rev. Sidhajbjai Sabhai
\n(supra), regulations which may lawfully be
\nimposed either by legislative or executive
\naction as a condition of receiving grant or
\nof recognition must be directed to making the
\ninstitution while retaining its character as
\nminority institution as an educational
\ninstitution.  Such regulation must satisfy a
\ndual test  the test of reasonableness, and
\nthe test that it is regulative of the
\neducational character of the institution and
\nis conclusive to making the institution an
\neffective vehicle of education for the
\nminority or other persons who resort to it.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe effect of the decision in Frank Anthony’s case
\n(supra) is that the statutory rights and privileges of
\nChapter IV have been extended to the employees covered by
\nChapter V and, therefore, the contractual rights have to be
\njudged in the background of statutory rights.  In view of
\nwhat has been stated in Frank Anthony’s case (supra) the
\nvery nature of employment has undergone a transformation and
\nservices of the employees in minorities un-aided schools
\ngoverned under Chapter V are no longer contractual in nature
\nbut they are statutory. The qualifications, leaves,
\nsalaries, age of retirement, pension, dismissal, removal,
\nreduction in rank, suspension and other conditions of
\nservice are to be governed exclusively under the statutory
\nregime provided in Chapter IV. The Tribunal constituted
\nunder Section 11 is the forum provided for enforcing some of
\nthese rights. In Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar
\nShantaram Wadke of Bombay and Ors.<\/a>  (1976 (1) SCC 496), it
\nhas been observed that if a statute confers a right and in
\nthe same breath provides for a remedy for enforcement of
\nsuch right, the remedy provided by the statute is an
\nexclusive one. If an employee seeks to enforce rights and
\nobligations created under Chapter IV, a remedy is available
\nto him to get an adjudication in the manner provided in
\nChapter IV by the prescribed forum i.e. the Tribunal. That
\nbeing so, the Tribunal cannot and in fact has no power and
\njurisdiction to hear the appeal on merits and only way is to
\nask the parties to go for arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to learned counsel for the appellant though
\nthere may be two remedies available to the dismissed
\nemployee, that is, one the appeal and the other before the
\narbitrator, his stand was that when one of the parties i.e.
\nthe employer wants a particular forum for adjudication there
\ncannot be a compulsion for him to go before the forum chosen
\nby the other party. This argument in our view is clearly
\nwithout substance. Even if there are plural or multiple
\nremedies available, the principle of dominus litis has clear
\napplication. In Dhannalal v. Kalawathi Bai (2002 (6) SCC 16)
\nthis Court relying on Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar<\/a> (1974 (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
393) held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“There is an inherent right in every
\nperson to bring a suit of a civil nature
\nand unless the suit is barred by
\nstatute, one may, at one’s peril, bring
\na suit of one’s choice. It is no answer
\nto a suit, howsoever frivolous the
\nclaim, that the law confers no such
\nright to sue. A suit for its
\nmaintainability requires no authority of
\nlaw and it is enough that no statute
\nbars the suit.\n<\/p>\n
In Dhannalal’s case (supra) it was further held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The plaintiff is dominus litis, that
\nis, master of, or having dominion over,
\nthe case. He is the person who has
\ncarriage and control of an action. In
\ncase of conflict of jurisdiction the
\nchoice ought to lie with the plaintiff
\nto choose the forum best suited to him
\nunless there be a rule of law excluding
\naccess to a forum of the plaintiff’s
\nchoice or permitting recourse to a forum
\nwill be opposed to public policy or will
\nbe an abuse of the process of law.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA question has been raised as to whether the Tribunal
\nis a judicial authority and\/or whether it exercises judicial
\npower in the background of sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of
\nthe Arbitration Act. The expression ‘Judicial Authority’ has
\nnot been defined under the said Act. The Tribunal is
\npresided by a judicial officer of equal rank of the District
\nJudge. The expenditure incurred on the Tribunal is defrayed
\nfrom the Consolidated Funds of India. It is vested with the
\npower to regulate its own proceedings and is vested with
\nsame powers as are vested in a Court of Law under the Code
\nof Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’). One important
\nfactor is that the Tribunal has a power to stay the
\noperation of the order appealed against.\n<\/p>\n
\tFinality has been attached to the order of the Tribunal
\nsubject to any judicial review under Article 226\/227 or
\nArticle 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
\n‘Constitution’). Meaning of the words “act judicially” and
\n“judicial power” need to be noted at this juncture.
\nProvisions of Section 11 of the Act clearly vest all the
\npowers of a civil appellate court in the Tribunal while
\ndealing with an appeal preferred before it under Section
\n8(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Regina John M’Evoy Vs. Dublin Corporation (1878) 2
\nLR Ir. 371 (D) it was observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The term “judicial” does not necessarily
\nmean acts of a judge or legal tribunal
\nsitting for the determination of matters of
\nlaw, but for the purpose of this question a
\njudicial act seems to be an act done by
\ncompetent authority, upon consideration of
\nfacts and circumstances and imposing
\nliability or affecting the rights of
\nothers.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Huddart Parker and Co. v. Moorehead (1909)8 CLR 330
\n(E) judicial powers were defined as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The words “judicial power” as used in
\nsection 71 of the Constitution mean the power
\nwhich every sovereign authority must of
\nnecessity have to decide controversies
\nbetween its subjects or between itself and
\nits subjects whether the rights relate to
\nlife, liberty or property. The exercise of
\nthis power does not begin until some tribunal
\nwhich has power to give a binding and
\nauthoritative decision (whether subject to
\nappeal or not) is called upon to take
\naction.”\n<\/p>\n
In Rex Vs. London County Council (1931) 2 KB 215 (F)
\njudicial authority was defined as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“It is not necessary that it should be a
\nCourt in the sense in which this Court is a
\ncourt; it is enough if it is exercising,
\nafter hearing evidence, judicial functions in
\nthe sense that it has to decide on evidence
\nbetween a proposal and an opposition and it
\nis not necessary to be strictly a Court.”\n<\/p>\n
In Royal Aquarium and summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd.
\nv. Parkinson  (1892 (1) QB 431) dealing with the meaning of
\nthe word ‘judicial’ it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The word ‘judicial’ has two meanings. It
\nmay refer to the discharge of duties
\nexercisable by a Judge or by Justices in
\nCourt or to administrative duties which need
\nnot be performed in court, but in respect of
\nwhich it is necessary to bring to bear a
\njudicial mind, that is, a mind to determine
\nwhat is fair and just in respect of the
\nmatters under consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
\tReference to expressions “judicial”, and “judicial
\npower” as detailed in Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath
\nAiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005 (at pages 2512 and 2518) would be
\nappropriate:\n<\/p>\n
“Judicial: Belonging to a cause, trial or
\njudgment; belonging to or emanating from a
\njudge as such; the authority vested in a
\njudge. (Bouvier L. Dict.);  of, or belonging
\nto a Court of justice; of or pertaining to a
\njudge; pertaining to the administration of
\njustice, proper to a Court of law.\n<\/p>\n
The word “judicial” is used in two senses.
\nThe first to designate such bodies or
\nofficers “as have the power of adjudication
\nupon the rights of persons and property.  In
\nthe other class of cases it is used to
\nexpress an act of the mind or judgment upon a
\nproposed course of official action as to an
\nobject of corporate power, for the
\nconsequences of which the official will not
\nbe liable, although his act was not well
\njudged. (See Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson,
\n(1892) 1 QB 431).\n<\/p>\n
Judicial Power: The power to decide cases and
\ncontroversies (Craig R. Ducat
\nConstitutional Interpretation).\n<\/p>\n
In “Words and Phrases  Legally Defined” by
\nJohn B. Saunders, Volume 3, at page 113,
\n“Judicial Power” has been defined:\n<\/p>\n
“If a body which has power to give a binding
\nand authoritative decision is able to take
\naction so as to enforce that decision, then
\nbut only by then, according to the definition
\nquoted, all the attributes of judicial power
\nare plainly present.” “Judicial power” as
\ndefined by Chief Justice Griffith in Huddart
\nParker and Co. v. Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330
\nat 357 approved by the Privy Council in Shell
\nCompany of Australia v. Federal Commr. Of
\nTaxation, (1931) AC 275 at p.283 means the
\npower which every sovereign authority must of
\nnecessity have to decide controversies
\nbetween its subjects, or between itself and
\nits subjects, whether the rights relate to
\nlife, liberty or property.  The exercise of
\nthis power does not begin until some tribunal
\nwhich has power to give a binding and
\nauthoritative decision (whether subject to
\nappeal or not) is called upon to take action.\n<\/p>\n
The authority to determine the rights of
\npersons or property by arbitrating between
\nadversaries in specific controversies at the
\ninstance of a party thereto; the authority
\nvested in some Court, officer, or person to
\nhear and determine when the rights of persons
\nor property or the propriety of doing an act
\nis the subject-matter of adjudication.
\n(Grider v. Tally 54, Am Rep 65).\n<\/p>\n
A judge exercises “judicial powers” not
\nonly when he is deciding suits between
\nparties, but also when he exercises
\ndisciplinary powers which are properly
\nappurtenant to the office of a judge. (A.G.
\nof Gambia v. N’ Jie, 1961 AC 617.\n<\/p>\n
At first flush, Sections 8(3) and 15 of the Act may appear
\nto be self-contradictory.  But it is really not so, when
\nconsidered in the background of what is stated in Frank
\nAnthony and St. Xaviers’ cases (supra).  By giving benefit
\nof Section 8(3) to employees of recognized unaided minority
\nschools, they are put at par with their counterparts in
\nprivate schools.  The two provisions serve similar purpose
\ni.e. providing a forum for ventilating grievances before a
\nforum.  Once a remedy under one is exhausted it is not
\npermissible to avail the other one.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs noted by this Court in Bank of India v. Lekhimoni
\nDas and Ors. (2000 (3) SCC 640), as a general principle
\nwhere two remedies are available under law, one of them
\nshould not be taken as operating in derogation of the other.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India
\nLtd.<\/a> (1995 (3) JT SC 42) this Court held that the Company
\nLaw Board was a Court while exercising the functions of the
\nCourt. No serious challenge is raised by learned counsel for
\nthe appellant to the proposition that the Tribunal is a
\njudicial authority within the meaning of the Arbitration
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile accepting the stand of the appellant in a given
\ncase the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act could be
\nrendered nugatory by requiring the Tribunal to refer the
\nmatter to an arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of what has been stated above, the inevitable
\nconclusion is that the Civil Appeal No.6593 of 2003 is sans
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 5143\/2005<\/p>\n
\tIn view of our judgment in C.A. No.6593 of 2003, this
\nappeal is equally without merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
\nrendered by Mr. P.S. Narasimha appeared as Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth the appeals are dismissed without any order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6593 of 2003 PETITIONER: Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School RESPONDENT: Shri Vijay Kumar and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - 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\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-10T23:10:19+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T23:10:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4424,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T23:10:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - 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\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-10T23:10:19+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T23:10:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005"},"wordCount":4424,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005","name":"Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T23:10:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-of-montfort-vs-shri-vijay-kumar-and-ors-on-12-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Committee Of Montfort … vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005"}]},{"@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\/79485","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=79485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}