{"id":85910,"date":"2011-05-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2"},"modified":"2016-12-02T18:25:40","modified_gmt":"2016-12-02T12:55:40","slug":"banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n
            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                             Date of decision: 19th May, 2011\n\n+                           W.P.(C) 3390\/2011\n\n%        BANWARI LAL                                           ..... Petitioner\n                            Through:      Mr. N.A. Sebastian, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n         THE MANAGEMENT OF M\/S MOOLCHAND\n         KHARAITIRAM HOSPITAL                     ..... Respondent\n                     Through: Mr. Jatin Zaveri, Adv.\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                        No\n         be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No\n\n3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No\n         in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.       The writ petition impugns the award dated 22 nd January 2008 of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:<\/p>\n
         “Whether the services of Sh. Suresh S\/o Sh. Pistola have been
\n         terminated illegally and\/or unjustifiably by the management,
\n         and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3390\/2011                                                  Page 1 of 6<\/span>
\n          consequential benefits in terms of existing laws\/Govt.
\n         Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what
\n         directions are necessary in this respect?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.       The Industrial Adjudicator first framed an issue as to the fairness<\/p>\n
and compliance of principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry<\/p>\n
held by the respondent preceding the order of termination of the petitioner<\/p>\n
and vide order dated 15th January, 2008 held that the departmental inquiry<\/p>\n
was fair, proper and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural<\/p>\n
justice.      The Industrial Adjudicator thereafter vide award dated 22 nd<\/p>\n
January, 2008 impugned in this writ petition held that the penalty imposed<\/p>\n
on the petitioner was proportionate to the charges of which the petitioner<\/p>\n
had been found guilty.\n<\/p>\n
3.       The petitioner was charged with unauthorized absence from duty<\/p>\n
from 11th January, 1997 to 24th January, 1997, 4th February, 1997 to 27th<\/p>\n
February, 1997, 3rd March, 1997 to 25th May, 1997, 28th May, 1997, 2nd<\/p>\n
June, 1997 to 21st July, 1998, 23rd July, 1998 to 19th July, 2001, 21st July,<\/p>\n
2001 to 23rd January, 2002 and 9th January, 2003 to 2nd February, 2003.<\/p>\n
4.       An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner appeared before<\/p>\n
the Inquiry Officer and admitted receipt of charge sheet along with list of
\nW.P.(C)3390\/2011                                               Page 2 of 6<\/span>
\n witnesses and document and admitted the charge.             The only defence<\/p>\n
statement offered in his admittal of the charge was that during the period of<\/p>\n
absence, the petitioner had remained ill and heavily upset due to bad evils;<\/p>\n
that the reason for remaining heavily upset was the unfortunate demise of<\/p>\n
his two sons aged 4 and 6 years. It was also stated that the petitioner<\/p>\n
belonged to poor Scheduled Caste family and being low paid as well as<\/p>\n
illiterate, he did not know the Rules & Regulations. The petitioner sought<\/p>\n
pardon for his guilt and offered assurance that he would in future not<\/p>\n
remain absent from duty.\n<\/p>\n
5.       The Inquiry Officer submitted a report reporting admittance of<\/p>\n
charge by the petitioner and accordingly finding the petitioner guilty of<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence.        The two Medical Certificates issued by the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the period 11th January, 1997 to 27th February, 1997 and from<\/p>\n
13th January, 1997 to 21st May, 1997 were held to have been proved.<\/p>\n
6.       The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB)<\/p>\n
imposed the punishment aforesaid of removal of service.<\/p>\n
7.       The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of<\/p>\n
the Industrial Adjudicator of inquiry being fair and in compliance of
\nW.P.(C)3390\/2011                                                 Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n principles of natural justice is erroneous. It is contended that the petitioner<\/p>\n
had only admitted the factum of his unauthorized absence and not his guilt.<\/p>\n
It is contended that the Inquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to prove the reason for his absence.\n<\/p>\n
8.       In this regard it may be noticed that the Industrial Adjudicator has in<\/p>\n
order 15th January, 2008 (supra) held that the petitioner in the cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the witnesses of the respondent DJB did not even give any<\/p>\n
suggestion that the inquiry conducted was not fair or proper or not in<\/p>\n
accordance with the principles of natural justice. It thus appears that there<\/p>\n
was no challenge really to the inquiry proceedings before the Industrial<\/p>\n
Adjudicator as made before this Court. Even otherwise, reading of the<\/p>\n
statement made by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer shows that the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not give any particulars of treatment of ailment from which<\/p>\n
he remained ill or of demise of his two children or any explanation for the<\/p>\n
long time of four years for which he had remained absent.<\/p>\n
9.       The counsel for the respondent DJB appearing on advance notice<\/p>\n
has contended that with such long unauthorized absence of employees, the<\/p>\n
respondent DJB cannot be expected to function efficiently. He has also
\nW.P.(C)3390\/2011                                                 Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n referred to DTC Vs. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 374. Though in the said<\/p>\n
judgment the observations were made in the context of the standing orders<\/p>\n
of the DTC but the spirit thereof is that unauthorized absence amounts to<\/p>\n
misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
10.      The counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that any<\/p>\n
opportunity for proving the reasons for absence was sought before the<\/p>\n
Inquiry Officer. Rather, the petitioner had unequivocally admitted the<\/p>\n
charge and had sought pardon and lenient view of the matter to be taken.<\/p>\n
No error can thus be found with the order of the Industrial Adjudicator on<\/p>\n
the validity of the inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
11.      Similarly, no reason for interference is found, with the award<\/p>\n
holding the punishment of removal from service to be proportionate for the<\/p>\n
long unauthorized absence of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
12.      The counsel for the respondent DJB has also contended that even the<\/p>\n
present writ petition has been filed after more than three years of the award<\/p>\n
impugned herein. Though the petitioner in the writ petition has purported<\/p>\n
to give an explanation for the said delay by pleading that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
not possessed of resources to challenge the award earlier but the same are
\nW.P.(C)3390\/2011                                              Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n again vague and it has not been stated as to how the resources has been<\/p>\n
mustered now. The petitioner before the Industrial Adjudicator was<\/p>\n
represented by Jal Mal Karamchari Morcha, a Union and as such<\/p>\n
explanation for long delay in filing the petition does not inspire<\/p>\n
confidence. The entire conduct of the petitioner is of the petitioner being<\/p>\n
not interested in employment. The worker who is without employment<\/p>\n
and wages and keen to join back, would not have waited for over three<\/p>\n
years to challenge the award against him.\n<\/p>\n
13.      No merit is thus found in the writ petition; the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
\n                                                   (JUDGE)
\nMAY19, 2011
\nbs<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3390\/2011                                              Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th May, 2011 + W.P.(C) 3390\/2011 % BANWARI LAL ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. N.A. Sebastian, Adv. Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M\/S MOOLCHAND KHARAITIRAM […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBanwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - 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\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1014,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - 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\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2"},"wordCount":1014,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2","name":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand ... on 19 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T12:55:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banwari-lal-vs-the-management-of-ms-moolchand-on-19-may-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banwari Lal vs The Management Of M\/S Moolchand … on 19 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/85910","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=85910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}