{"id":8692,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-19T20:56:08","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T15:26:08","slug":"the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.11752 of 2009\n\nThe Management,\nT.T.15, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\nEmployees Co-operative\nThrift and Credit Society Ltd.,\nArignar Anna Building,\nTirunelveli-627 011.\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.B.Naarambu Nathan\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nCommon Prayer\n\nWrit Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for\nthe records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in\nclaim petition No.26 of 2003, dated 28.08.2008 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t... Mr.S.M.Subramaniam\n^For 2nd Respondent \t... Mr.Ms.D.Geetha\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe writ petition is filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board  Employees Co-<br \/>\noperative Thrift Credit Society at Tirunelveli. In this writ petition, the<br \/>\npetitioner society challenges an order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in<br \/>\nC.P.No.26 of 2003, dated 28.08.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.When the writ petition came up on 17.11.2009, this Court ordered notice<br \/>\nof motion. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was passed.<br \/>\nSubsequently, when the matter came up on 29.10.2011, this Court found that the<br \/>\nmanagement of the petitioner society filed only a gist order made in C.P.No.26<br \/>\nof 2003 as the impugned order. It was pointed out by this Court that a gist<br \/>\norder supplied by the Labour Court at free of cost pursuant to the Rule 54(2) of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 will contain only the operative<br \/>\nportion of the order and will not contain reasons for the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel filed a  copy of the order made by the Labour Court,<br \/>\nTirunelveli, dated 29.11.2001, claiming to be the certified copy of the order<br \/>\nunder challenge.  In that order, the Labour Court had passed a common order in<br \/>\nrespect of 8 workmen in C.P.No.56 to 63 of 1989 filed by similarly placed<br \/>\npersons including the 2nd respondent (C.P.No.57\/99). But in the present case,<br \/>\nthe workman (Narumbunathan-R2) filed C.P.No.19 of 2003 and which was not the<br \/>\nsubject matter of the common order passed by  Labour Court, dated 29.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.It is very unfortunate that the management at the first instance files a<br \/>\ngist order and gets an admission. Thereafter when asked to file a certified<br \/>\ncopy, produces totally a different order which is not the subject matter of the<br \/>\nchallenge herein. It was due to over anxiety on the part of the learned counsel.<br \/>\nAs against the earlier common order, this Court in a batch of writ petitions in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.35491 and 35493 of 2002, by order dated 23.12.2010 allowed the writ<br \/>\npetitions and set aside that common order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.However, after this Court insisted the petitioner to produce a certified<br \/>\ncopy of the order passed in C.P.No.26 of 2003, which is the subject matter of<br \/>\nchallenge in this writ petition. It must be noted that a writ in the nature of<br \/>\nCertiorari, if it is filed against a particular order of a quasi judicial or<br \/>\njudicial authority, unless and until that order is produced before the Writ<br \/>\nCourt cannot review the order and find out whether the order suffers from any<br \/>\nmaterial irregularities so as to exercise its judicial review power conferred<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.After seeking adjournment of the case, the petitioner produced a<br \/>\ncertified copy of the order made in C.P.No.26 of 2003, dated 28.08.2008. A<br \/>\nperusal of the order shows that in that case, the Court computed amount on the<br \/>\nbasis of the earlier case filed by the second respondent workman in C.P.No.57 of<br \/>\n1999. But in the second claim petition was filed the second respondent had<br \/>\nexamined as P.W.1 but since no one appeared for the management, they were set<br \/>\nexparte. When an application to set aside the exparte order was also filed, it<br \/>\nwas allowed on costs to be paid to the workman. But on the date of passing of<br \/>\nthe order i.e., 28.08.2008 as the costs were not paid and as there was no<br \/>\nrepresentation, that restoration application was dismissed for default.<br \/>\nTherefore, the Court held that there was no ground to set aside its earlier<br \/>\norder. C.P.No.26 of 2003, was filed claiming wages for the period from<br \/>\n01.07.1999 to 30.09.2002 and amount was computed on the strength of the earlier<br \/>\norder in C.P.No.57 of 1999 to the tune of Rs.1,03,256\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The question is to be decided whether the impugned order calls for any<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.When series of lapses noted above, clearly showed that the management<br \/>\nwas not seriously interested in pursuing their legal claim. When they defaulted<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court and the Labour Court itself was inclined to allow was on<br \/>\npayment small costs. The management failed to utilise that opportunity and<br \/>\nremained exparte.  There is no gain saying that the earlier order in C.P.No.57<br \/>\nof 1999 was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.35491 of 2002 and batch of cases,<br \/>\nby a common order, dated 23.12.2010, the present order also must be set aside.<br \/>\nOn the other hand, the management&#8217;s request for reopening was allowed by the<br \/>\nLabour Court. The fact that the previous claim was negatived is not a ground to<br \/>\ninterfere with the subsequent order. But at the same time, the workman cannot be<br \/>\nallowed to get away by an exparte order computing a sum of more than one lakh<br \/>\nrupees due to the default by the management.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the<br \/>\npetitioner had not stated that it was an exparte order and they have not<br \/>\nexplained as to why they have failed to pay the costs. The affidavit is filed in<br \/>\na mechanical fashion copying from earlier affidavits. This practice of<br \/>\naffidavits sworn being to by parties without application of mind and without<br \/>\nreference to the facts of that particular case must stop. The learned counsels<br \/>\nmust devote more attention in the preparation of the pleadings for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.However, in the light of the circumstances set out above and in the<br \/>\ninterest of justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the order in C.P.No.26<br \/>\nof 2003, dated   28.08.2008. Since the workman was summoned to this Court for no<br \/>\ndefault on his side and in view of  series of blunders committed in this writ<br \/>\npetition, this Court is inclined to order a cost of Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.However, the order dated 28.08.2008 in C.P.No.26 of 2003 is set aside<br \/>\non the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5000\/- to the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe second respondent towards litigation costs. Once, it is set aside, the<br \/>\nmatter will have to be remanded to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli for fresh<br \/>\ndisposal. But no Court order an ineffecutal remand. In the impugned order, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has computed the claim only based upon the previous order in<br \/>\nC.P.No.57 of 1999 being the earlier claim petition filed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent. When it was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.35491 of 2002,<br \/>\nthe same was allowed and the order of the Labour Court was set aside by this<br \/>\nCourt on 23.12.2010. However, any remand will be futile and ritualistic.<br \/>\nTherefore, this Court is not inclined to remit the matter. However, the<br \/>\npetitioner is allowed to work out his rights before an appropriate forum.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, with cost<br \/>\nof Rs.5,000\/-.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sms<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Presiding Officer,<br \/>\n  Labour Court,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.11752 of 2009 The Management, T.T.15, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Arignar Anna Building, Tirunelveli-627 011. &#8230; Petitioner Vs. [&hellip;]<\/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-8692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1148,\"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\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":1148,"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\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T15:26:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 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:\/\/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\/8692","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=8692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}