{"id":198972,"date":"2018-07-24T17:51:39","date_gmt":"2018-07-24T12:21:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=198972"},"modified":"2018-08-05T16:56:57","modified_gmt":"2018-08-05T11:26:57","slug":"petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n

The dispute arose in relation to a contract executed between the petitioner and the respondents for construction of EWS houses. Arbitration Agreement between the parties was contained in Clause 25 of the said contract, which not only provided for hierarchical manner of adjudication of claims raised by the contractor but also gave a specific timeline for the decision of each authority. The primary contention raised on behalf of the respondents was that the petition was not maintainable in as much as the petitioner did not follow the procedure prescribed in the Agreement before filing of the present petition.<\/p>\n

In order to appreciate the submissions of the respondents, the High Court perused the Arbitration Agreement. On reading the sequence of events, the Court noted that the procedure as prescribed in Clause 25 was not followed by the petitioner. It was observed that Section 11(6) comes into play only where the other party fails to act as required under the procedure. The High Court was of the view that the petitioner, itself, having not followed the procedure as prescribed in the Arbitration Agreement, cannot make a complaint against respondents\u2019 alleged failure to act in accordance with the same. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was held that the petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure defined in the Arbitration Agreement. The order was made accordingly. [Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. DDA,\u00a0 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9884<\/a>, dated 10-07-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"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":[23334,10111,31134,31135],"class_list":["post-198972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-section-116","tag-sole-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"\nPetition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0 | 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\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-07-24T12:21:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-05T11:26:57+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=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\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\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"name\":\"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-07-24T12:21:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T11:26:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0\"}]},{\"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0 | 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\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-07-24T12:21:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-05T11:26:57+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":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/","name":"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-07-24T12:21:39+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T11:26:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/24\/petition-under-section-116-of-ac-act-dismissed-as-petitioner-itself-failed-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Petition under Section 11(6) of A&C Act dismissed as petitioner itself failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Arbitration Agreement \u00a0"}]},{"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":335098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWe have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise 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":"Appointment of Arbitrator","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300002,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":1},"title":"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause","author":"Editor","date":"August 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rajasthan high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-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\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196412,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/25\/arbitrator-appointed-in-light-of-undisputed-arbitration-agreement-between-the-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":2},"title":"Arbitrator appointed in light of undisputed Arbitration Agreement between the parties","author":"Saba","date":"May 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashis Kumar Chakraborty. J. decided an arbitration petition, wherein the arbitrator was appointed by the Court in light of disagreement between the parties on appointment of the arbitrator. The parties entered into a Contract for certain works. Clause 10.1 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/07\/dhc-on-arbitrators-discretion-to-fix-seat-of-arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":3},"title":"Arbitrator\u2019s discretion to fix venue\/seat of arbitration cannot override parties\u2019 exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitrator's discretion seat of arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/delhi-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-in-petition-against-national-highway-and-infrastructure-development-corporation-ltd\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court appoints Sole Arbitrator in petition against the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"As per Clause 26.2 of the Agreement, the Chairman\/Managing Director of the Board of Directors of Contractors was supposed to do the conciliation and not the committee constituted by NHIDCL.","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":341763,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/18\/dhc-appoints-justice-arvind-sangwan-as-sole-arbitrator-in-petition-filed-by-dixon-technologies\/","url_meta":{"origin":198972,"position":5},"title":"Delhi HC appoints Justice Arvind Sangwan as sole arbitrator in a petition filed by Dixon Technologies","author":"Arushi","date":"February 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and would abide by its rules and regulations.","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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198972","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}