{"id":191144,"date":"2018-02-20T11:03:20","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T05:33:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=191144"},"modified":"2018-02-20T11:03:20","modified_gmt":"2018-02-20T05:33:20","slug":"mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Calcutta High Court:<\/strong> An appeal was decided by a Division Bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, JJ., wherein the order of the Arbitration Court refusing to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award was upheld.<\/p>\n

The appellant challenged a certain arbitral award passed by the District Judge, in the Arbitration Court. The said Court refused to entertain such challenge in the light of mandate of Section 42 of the A&C Act, 1996. Previous to filing the said challenge before the Arbitration Court, a petition was filed under Section 9 of the said Act before the District Judge. The appellant, in the instant appeal, challenged the order passed by the Arbitration Court refusing to entertain the said challenge.<\/p>\n

In order to settle the controversy, the High Court perused Section 42 and also referred to Sections 8 and 11 of the said Act. The Court observed that in view of the mandate in Section 42, once a petition under Part-I of the Act pertaining to an arbitration agreement is carried to a particular court and such court entertains it and there is no objection as to its jurisdiction, all subsequent petitions under Part\u2013I of the Act of 1996 pertaining to the same arbitration agreement have to be carried only to such court. The Court also observed that Section 42 covers not only particular arbitral reference, but the arbitration agreement itself. Further, Sections 8 and 11 of the Act are beyond the purview of Section 42.<\/p>\n

On the basis of above discussion, the Court was of the view that no fault could be found in the order impugned by the appellant, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with cost. [Dalim Kumar Chakraborty V. Gouri Biswas, APO No. 33 of 2018, order dated 16-02-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Calcutta High Court: An appeal was decided by a Division Bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, JJ., wherein the order <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":48761,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts"],"yoast_head":"\nMandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained | 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\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court: An appeal was decided by a Division Bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, JJ., wherein the order\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-02-20T05:33:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\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\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/\",\"name\":\"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-20T05:33:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained\"}]},{\"@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":"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained | 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\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained","og_description":"Calcutta High Court: An appeal was decided by a Division Bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, JJ., wherein the order","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-02-20T05:33:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.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\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/","name":"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg","datePublished":"2018-02-20T05:33:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/20\/mandate-s-42-arbitration-conciliation-act-explained\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mandate of S. 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act explained"}]},{"@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":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":309781,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/20\/bombay-high-court-clarifies-jurisdiction-in-view-of-section42-arbitration-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":0},"title":"Bombay High Court dismisses appeal challenging jurisdiction in view of Section 42 of Arbitration Act","author":"Arunima","date":"December 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"As per Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere or in any other law where with respect to an Arbitration Agreement, any application has been made to a Court which had jurisdiction, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings which was first approached.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330013,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/madras-hc-uphold-arbitration-award-passed-beyond-12-months-from-date-tribunal-entered-upon-reference\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":1},"title":"‘Section 29-A of Arbitration Act is procedural and discretion is given to parties to extend arbitration period further for 6 months’ ; Madras HC upholds arbitration award passed beyond 12 months","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe legislative intent of inserting Section 29-A of the Act is only for expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings and not to confer a new defence upon an unsuccessful party to challenge the award and to reopen the entire proceedings.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":210176,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/18\/ker-hc-designation-of-seat-of-arbitration-in-an-agreement-is-akin-to-an-exclusive-jurisdiction-clause\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":2},"title":"Ker HC | Designation of seat of arbitration in an agreement is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of District Judge refusing to entertain a petition challenging arbitral award. Appellant was a guarantor to the loan availed of by a company named Anugraha Wood Products Limited from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":335603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/20\/awards-rendered-by-msme-council-only-be-challenged-under-section-34-arbitration-act-rissa-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":3},"title":"Awards rendered by MSME Council can be challenged under Section 34 of A&C Act and not under Art. 226: Orissa High Court","author":"Editor","date":"November 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the matter at hand, the appellant contended that the Council\u2019s award ought to have been interfered with under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution, as there was no conciliation in accordance with the procedure prescribed, a condition precedent for initiation of arbitration proceeding under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-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\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362407,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/03\/rajasthan-high-court-appellate-power-under-section-37-arbitration-appeal-no-arbitration-clause-limitation\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":4},"title":"Rajasthan High Court: Appellate power under Section 37 confined to domain of Section 34 of Arbitration Act","author":"Editor","date":"October 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe scope of the intervention of the court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Appellate power under Section 37","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Appellate-power-under-Section-37.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Appellate-power-under-Section-37.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Appellate-power-under-Section-37.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Appellate-power-under-Section-37.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332460,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/04\/recap-top-arbitration-law-cases-invocation-bank-guarantees-arbitral-awards-non-signatories-september-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":191144,"position":5},"title":"Arbitration Law Roundup | A recap of top Arbitration Law cases in September 2024","author":"Editor","date":"October 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Read decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in matters related to invocation of Bank Guarantees, Arbitral awards, Non-Signatories, and more.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"A recap of top Arbitration Law cases in September 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191144","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=191144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191144\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/48761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}