{"id":100353,"date":"2011-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-14T16:41:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-14T11:11:09","slug":"naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/5164\/2011\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5164 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\nNARANBHAI\nBHEMABHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIVISIONAL\nDIRECTOR - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSP MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MRKIRITVCHAUDHARI for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 1, \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn
\nthis petition, petitioner – Shri Naranbhai B. Parmar, has
\nchallenged award passed by Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference No.843
\nof 2008 (Old No.18\/2007), Exh.24, dated 13.10.2010, whereby, Labour
\nCourt has dismissed Reference filed by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
\ndepartmental inquiry admitted by petitioner – workman but, petitioner
\nhas challenged  legality and validity of finding which has not been
\nproperly examined by Labour Court while exercising powers under
\nSection 11A of I.D.Act,1947. He also submitted that punishment of
\ndismissal in case when conductor has received amount of fare and not
\nissued tickets, is considered to be a harsh punishment and therefore,
\nit is required to be modified by this Court. He also submitted that
\nat the time when bus was checked by checking staff, in all 29
\npassengers were travelling and bus was local and it was a night time
\nand way bill of conductor was open. Therefore, conductor was on
\nprocess of issuing tickets, meanwhile bus was checked. Therefore,
\nthere was no bad intention of workman. He also submitted that
\nreasoning given by Labour Court that if bus was not checked by
\nchecking staff, then conductor may misappropriate aforesaid amount of
\nfare received from passengers. Therefore, reasoning which has been
\ngiven is based on presumption and for that, Labour Court has
\ncommitted gross error in rejecting reference filed by workman. Except
\nthat, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar and
\nalso perused award in question. The petitioner was working as a
\nconductor with Corporation since more than 20 years according to
\nstatement of claim filed by petitioner before Labour Court at Exh.8.
\nThe bus of petitioner was checked by checking staff on 25.9.1998 when
\nhe was on route from Vadnagar-Jalampur
\nand bus was checked at Dharoi colony, at that occasion passengers
\nwere found without tickets, though fare was collected by petitioner –
\nconductor. Therefore, charge-sheet was served to workman and
\nthereafter, he was transferred to Vadnagar
\nDepot  to Kadi Depot. and then, he was dismissed from service
\non 15.6.2004.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBefore
\nLabour Court, petitioner – workman has not challenged legality
\nand validity of departmental inquiry but, has challenged only finding
\ngiven by Inquiry Officer. The respondent – Corporation has
\nfiled reply Exh.9 denying averments made by petitioner in statement
\nof claim. The respondent – Corporation has produced certain
\ndocuments on record vide list Exh.10, Exh.10\/1 to 10\/9 which has been
\ngiven pakka Exh.12 to Exh.20. The Corporation has produced entire
\nrecord of departmental inquiry including default card. The pursis was
\nfiled by workman Exh.11 not challenging legality and validity of
\ndepartmental inquiry. Thereafter, workman was examined vide Exh.21
\nand on behalf of Corporation, no oral evidence has been led because
\npapers of departmental inquiry are exhibited before Labour Court. The
\nLabour Court has considered allegations made against workman when bus
\nwas checked on 25.9.1998. At the time of checking, three different
\ngroup of passengers comes to 26, who were traveling from Vav to Mahor
\nPatiya and from them, fare was collected by conductor which amount
\ncomes to Rs.78\/-. Even at the point of time of checking tickets were
\nnot given or issued by conductor to concerned passengers. Therefore,
\nstatements of passengers were recorded on the spot by checking staff.
\nBut that statement was not signed by conductor and refused it. The
\npetitioner conductor has misbehaved with checking staff when the bus
\nwas checked by checking staff. The Labour Court after appreciating
\nentire evidence which has been produced by Corporation and exhibited
\nbefore Labour Court, come to conclusion that finding recorded by
\nInquiry Officer cannot consider to be a baseless and perverse. The
\nspot statement of petitioner which was recorded on 25.9.1998 when bus
\nwas checked by checking staff Exh.12\/6 wherein signature of driver
\nwas also obtained and statement of passengers Exh.12\/1 to 12\/5
\nrecorded by checking staff, that has been proved by reporter while
\ngiving evidence in departmental inquiry. In spot statement given by
\npassenger where specific allegations were made against conductor that
\namount of fare was paid to conductor at the time when they boarded in
\nthe bus, even though upto checking point after recovering fare,
\nconductor has not issued tickets to passengers.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\ncontention which has been raised by advocate of conductor before
\nLabour Court that passengers were not examined in departmental
\ninquiry. That has been considered by labour Court while relying upon
\ndecision of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana v. Ratan Sinh,<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1977 SC 1512 and a decision reported in 1998 2 GLR\n<\/p>\n
193. Therefore, Labour Court has come to conclusion that as per Rules
\nof Corporation, without issuing tickets by conductor, bus should not
\nhave to be started. Therefore, Labour Court has come to conclusion
\nthat conductor has misappropriated amount of fare received from
\npassengers and not issued tickets. This being a serious misconduct
\ncommitted by petitioner – workman. The default card has been
\nconsidered Exh.18 in which in all 23 misconducts in past committed by
\nworkman. Earlier also, he was dismissed from service and looking to
\npresent misconduct which is found to be proved against conductor,
\nLabour Court has thought it fit not to exercise powers under Section
\n11-A of I.D.Act,1947 because Labour Court is satisfied that
\npunishment of dismissal is not disproportionate looking to gravity of
\nmisconduct committed by workman.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\nLabour Court has considered decisions of Apex Court in case of Punjab
\n& Others v. Ram Sinh, reported in JT 1992 (4) SC 253;, Municipal
\nCorporation, Bahadurgadh v. Krishnan Bihari, reported in 1997 (73)
\nFLR 1429;  Janta Bazar South Canara Central Co-op. Wholesale Stores
\nLtd. and Others v. Secretary, Sahkari Sangh and others, reported in
\n2000 (2) LLJ 395; UPSRTC v. Mohanlal Gupta and Others, reported in
\n2001 LLR 1154; a decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 1462; UPSRTC, Itawa
\nv. Hotilal and Others, reported in 2003 (96) FLR 1076;  North-West
\nKSRTC, Hubli v. S.S. Polecy, reported in 2001 (88) FLR 254;
\nDivisional Controller, KSRTC v. A. Timani, reported in (2005) 3 SCC
\n254; Union of India & Anr. v. S.S. Ahuvadlla, reported in 2007
\n(2) CLR 391; recent decision of Apex Court in case of UPSRTC v.
\nNanhelal Kushawa, reported in 2009 LLR 1149 and thereafter, recent
\ndecision of Apex Court in case of UPSRTC v. Sureshchand Sharma,
\nreported in 2010 LLR 760. After considering all decisions wherein
\nApex Court has held that in case of dishonesty, corruption and
\nmisappropriation if it is found to be proved against workman, that is
\nto be considered being a serious misconduct and in such
\ncircumstances, punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be
\ndisproportionate. The Labour Court is having a limited power under
\nSection-11A of I.D.Act,1947 in case when conductor lost confidence of
\nCorporation and misappropriated amount of fare means revenue of
\nCorporation and in such circumstances, labour Court has rightly
\nsatisfied that not to exercise powers under Section 11A of
\nI.D.Act,1947 because punishment of dismissal in such circumstances
\ncannot consider to be disproportionate or unjust.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\ncase of UPSRTC v. Sureshchand Sharma,  reported in 2010 (6) SCC 555,
\nwhich decision is also considered by labour Court, the Apex Court has
\nobserved in Para.21, 22, 23, 24 are under :\n<\/p>\n
“21.\tWe
\ndo not find any force in the submissions made by Dr. J.N.Dubey,
\nlearned Senior Counsel for     the employee  that   for embezzlement
\nof such a petty amount, punishment of dismissal could not be
\njustified for the reason that it  is   not    the amount embezzled by
\na delinquent employee but the mens rea to mis- appropriate the public
\nmoney.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn
\nMunicipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan Bihari & Ors., AIR
\n1996 SC 1249, this Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“4.\tIn
\na case of such nature – indeed, in cases involving corruption –
\nthere cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy
\nshown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public
\ninterest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the
\nact of misappropriation that is relevant.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\nview has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby
\n(I)\tLtd.    Vs.    T.B.    Kadam,     AIR    1975    SC    2025;\n<\/p>\n
 U.P. State    Road Transport Corporation Vs. Basudeo Chaudhary &
\nAnr., (1997) 11 SCC 370;   Janatha       Bazar    (South     Kanara
\n   Central Cooperative       Wholesale  Stores Ltd.) & Ors. Vs.
\nSecretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 517;<\/p>\n
\nKarnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs.    B.S.    Hullikatti,\n        AIR   2001   SC     930;    and    Regional Manager,\n<\/pre>\n
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn
\nDivisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730;
\nand U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115, this Court held
\nthat the punishment should always be proportionate to the   gravity
\n of   the   misconduct.     However,                   in a   case
\nof corruption\/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tThus,
\nin view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the employee
\nthat punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the
\nproved delinquency of the employee, is not worth acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
25.
\nThe Appeal preferred by the Corporation I.e. Civil Appeal No. 3086 of
\n   2007 is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated
\n7.9.2005 is hereby set aside and the Award of the Labour Court dated
\n28.4.1995 is restored.  The appeal preferred by the employee I.e.
\nCivil Appeal No.3088 of 2007 is hereby dismissed. No order as to
\ncosts.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nlight of various decisions of Apex Court based on same misconduct,
\ncorruption, dishonesty and misappropriation found to be proved
\nagainst workman, in such circumstances no interference is required to
\nbe made by Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of
\nI.D.Act,1947. For that according to my opinion, contentions raised by
\nlearned advocate Mr.Majmudar cannot be accepted. In departmental
\ninquiry because of evidence given by reporter and number of
\nstatements given by passengers as well as spot statement given by
\nconductor – present petitioner wherein signature of driver was
\nthere and in that statement, conductor has admitted misconduct of
\ncollecting fare and not issuing tickets to passengers upto checking
\npoint. This being a sufficient evidence led in departmental inquiry
\nand finding is based on such documents, cannot consider to be
\nbaseless and perverse. Therefore, contentions raised by learned
\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar that finding given by Inquiry Officer is
\nbaseless and perverse, cannot be accepted. According to my opinion,
\nLabour Court has rightly examined issue while adjudicating
\nreference. For that, Labour Court has not committed any error which
\nrequires interference by this Court while exercising powers under
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no
\nsubstance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
[
\nH.K.RATHOD, J. ]<\/p>\n
(vipul)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/5164\/2011 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5164 of 2011 ========================================= NARANBHAI BHEMABHAI PARMAR – Petitioner(s) Versus DIVISIONAL DIRECTOR – Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR SP MAJMUDAR […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNaranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-14T11:11:09+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-14T11:11:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-14T11:11:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-14T11:11:09+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-14T11:11:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011"},"wordCount":1737,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011","name":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-14T11:11:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-vs-divisional-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naranbhai vs Divisional on 6 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/100353","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=100353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}