{"id":187414,"date":"2018-02-09T14:19:06","date_gmt":"2018-02-09T08:49:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=187414"},"modified":"2018-02-15T15:14:01","modified_gmt":"2018-02-15T09:44:01","slug":"application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","title":{"rendered":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:<\/strong> A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter, the \u2018Act\u2019), seeking extension of time for making of the arbitral award by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n

The respondents argued that since the Arbitral Tribunal had been constituted on an application under Section 11 of the Act filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the present petition would be outside the jurisdiction of this Court in view of Section 42 of the Act. To this argument, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of West Bengal<\/em> v. Associated Contractors<\/em>, (2015) 1 SCC 32<\/a>\u00a0 to reiterate that applications under Section 11 do not per se count as an application before a Court as to be understood by the language of Section 42, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Hence, it was held that the Court, which otherwise has jurisdiction is competent to entertain the petition. Establishing it\u2019s jurisdiction, the Court reiterated the judgment in the Supreme Court case of Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd.<\/em> v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd.,<\/em> (2017) 7 SCC 678<\/a>, wherein it was held that the seat of arbitration, which was Delhi in the instant case, would dictate the Court of exclusive jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that no submissions were made by the respondent against extension of time and also, in the opinion of the Court, the time for making of award deserved to be extended. The period of time for making of award was extended by a period of six months. Petition allowed. [Raheja Developers Ltd. v. Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6966<\/a>, decided on 30.01.2018]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[11211,28174,15551],"class_list":["post-187414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-application","tag-arbitation","tag-seat-of-arbitration"],"yoast_head":"\nApplication under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e) | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-02-09T08:49:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-15T09:44:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/\",\"name\":\"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e) | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-09T08:49:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-15T09:44:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e) | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-02-09T08:49:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-15T09:44:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","name":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e) | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-02-09T08:49:06+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-15T09:44:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":363311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/interplay-between-sections-33-34-arbitration-act-experts-corner\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":0},"title":"When Does the Clock Start Ticking? The Interplay Between Sections 33 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Arush Khanna* and Gurdev Singh Tung**","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Sections 33 and 34 Arbitration Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/06\/arbitration-round-up-june-2024-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":1},"title":"Arbitration Roundup June 2024; Update yourself with all the latest Arbitration law updates in June 2024","author":"Editor","date":"July 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA quick recap of the latest rulings by the Supreme Court and High Courts- From the mandate of the arbitrator to the challenge of award passed by arbitrator\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Arbitration laws June 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":2},"title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitration Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325070,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/25\/can-mandate-of-arbitral-tribunal-extended-us-29a-of-arbitration-act-after-expiry-of-mandate-dhc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":3},"title":"Can mandate of arbitral tribunal be extended u\/s 29A of the Arbitration Act, even after expiry of such mandate? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"June 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/22\/delhi-high-court-dismisses-petition-under-section9-arbitration-act-lack-of-urgency-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Situation not emergent to justify parallel adjudication by Court\u2019: Delhi High Court dismisses Section 9 Arbitration petition due to Lack of Urgency","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of disputes between parties, there is the pernicious possibility of any observation being made by the Court influencing the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/delhi-high-court-amendment-application-being-rejected-as-belated-does-not-constitute-interim-award-susceptible-to-challenge-under-s-34-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":187414,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (\u2018A&C Act') challenging an order passed wherein the arbitrator rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim, Prateek Jalan, J. dismissed the petition as non-maintainable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}