{"id":9744,"date":"2007-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-17T06:01:36","modified_gmt":"2015-12-17T00:31:36","slug":"raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6171 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nRaman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSolanki Traders\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nR.V. RAVEENDRAN &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>1. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 143\/2000 on the file of<br \/>\nthe Civil Judge Junior Division, Medchal, filed by the respondent for<br \/>\nrecovery of Rs.99200\/- towards supply of material.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC praying for<br \/>\na direction to defendants to furnish security for the suit claim and if<br \/>\nthey failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. The Trial Court by<br \/>\nits order dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the said application. It noted that<br \/>\nthough the plaintiff alleged that two post dated cheques given by the<br \/>\ndefendants towards payment of the bill amounts were dishonoured, it had<br \/>\nneither disclosed the particulars of the said cheques, nor the dates of<br \/>\ndishonour. It was of the view that merely making a bald statement that<br \/>\nRs.99,200\/- was due from the defendants was not sufficient to make out<br \/>\nprima facie case, when defendants had denied the suit claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The said order was challenged in revision by the plaintiff. Before the<br \/>\nHigh Court, the plaintiff pointed out that the trial court had ignored its<br \/>\naverment that defendants had removed their name board and were removing<br \/>\ntheir machinery from the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff also<br \/>\nproduced a copy of the writ petition (WP No. 11855\/2000) filed by the<br \/>\ndefendants to restrain the police from interfering with the shifting of<br \/>\ntheir assets from their business premises to another premises. The High<br \/>\nCourt allowed the revision petition by order dated 13.10.2000, being of the<br \/>\nview that the trial court ought to have taken note of the fact that<br \/>\ndefendants were trying to remove the machinery. It directed defendants to<br \/>\nfurnish security for the suit amount to the satisfaction of the court<br \/>\nwithin four weeks. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special<br \/>\nleave.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or<br \/>\nattachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment<br \/>\nof receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object<br \/>\nof order 38 rule 5 CPC in particular, is to prevent any defendant from<br \/>\ndefeating the realization of the decree that may ultimately be passed in<br \/>\nfavour of the plaintiff, either by attempting to dispose of, or remove from<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction of the court, his movables. The Scheme of Order 38 and the<br \/>\nuse of the words `to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may<br \/>\nbe passed against him&#8217; in Rule 5 make it clear that before exercising the<br \/>\npower under the said Rule, the court should be satisfied that there is a<br \/>\nreasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the<br \/>\ndefendant. This would mean that the court should be satisfied the plaintiff<br \/>\nhas a prima facie case. If the averments in the plaint and the documents<br \/>\nproduced in support of it, do not satisfy the court about the existence of<br \/>\na prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of examining<br \/>\nwhether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising<br \/>\npower under Order 38 Rule 5CPC. It is well-settled that merely having a<br \/>\njust or valid claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff<br \/>\nto an order of attachment before judgment, unless he also establishes that<br \/>\nthe defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets with the<br \/>\nintention of defeating the decree that may be passed. Equally well settled<br \/>\nis the position that even where the defendant is removing or disposing his<br \/>\nassets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff<br \/>\nis not able to satisfy that he has a prima facie case.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is drastic and extraordinary power.<br \/>\nSuch power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking.<br \/>\nIt Should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The<br \/>\npurpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a<br \/>\nsecured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order<br \/>\n38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim<br \/>\nshould be discouraged. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful<br \/>\nclaims are realised by unscrupulous plaintiffs by obtaining orders of<br \/>\nattachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out of court<br \/>\nsettlement, under threat of attachment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely<br \/>\nbecause a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of<br \/>\nbusiness from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to<br \/>\nanother premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before<br \/>\njudgment. A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bonafide<br \/>\nand valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove<br \/>\nor dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of<br \/>\nobstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed<br \/>\nagainst him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Courts<br \/>\nshould also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment<br \/>\nbefore judgment (See &#8211; Prem Raj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi, AIR (1951) Cal<br \/>\n156, for a clear summary of the principles.)<\/p>\n<p>7. In this case, the suit claim was Rs. 99200\/- The notice issued before<br \/>\nfiling the suit related to dishonour of two cheques for Rs.<br \/>\n22487\/-. The particulars of the claim in the plaint were not specific. The<br \/>\ntrial court had rejected the application on the ground that plaintiff had<br \/>\nfailed to make out a prima facie case. It did not, therefore, examine the<br \/>\nquestion whether defendant was attempting to defeat any decree that many be<br \/>\npassed by shifting his machinery. On the other hand, the High Court ignored<br \/>\nthe absence of prima facie case. It granted relief under Order 38 rule 5,<br \/>\nin exercise of revisional jurisdiction, swayed by the fact that the<br \/>\ndefendants had shifted their assets to another premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. On the facts and circumstances, the High Court ought not to have<br \/>\ninterfered with the order rejecting the application. We, therefore, allow<br \/>\nthis appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order<br \/>\nof the trial court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6171 of 2001 PETITIONER: Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Solanki Traders DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2007 BENCH: R.V. RAVEENDRAN &amp; P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-17T00:31:36+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\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T00:31:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1046,\"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\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T00:31:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-17T00:31:36+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\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T00:31:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007"},"wordCount":1046,"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\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007","name":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; ... vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T00:31:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-tech-process-engg-co-vs-solanki-traders-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raman Tech. &amp; Process Engg. Co. &amp; &#8230; vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9744","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=9744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9744\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}