{"id":103431,"date":"2010-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-14T19:57:29","modified_gmt":"2018-09-14T14:27:29","slug":"dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\nLPA\/369\/1997\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 369 of 1997\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3769 of 1987\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDILIP\nKANTILAL SHAH - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNITED\nBANK OF INDIA &amp; 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMURLI DEVNANI FOR MR YOGESH S LAKHANI\nfor Appellant  \nMR BHARAT\nJANI for Respondent: 1, \nMR RASHEED QURESHI for Respondents : 1 -\n2. \nMR MOHSIN M PETIWALA for Respondents : 1 -\n2. \n=========================================================\n\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 BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant by way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of<br \/>\n\tthe Letters Patent has approached this Court challenging the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order dated 3.3.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 3769 of 1987, whereby, the learned<br \/>\n\tSingle Judge has rejected the Special Civil Application preferred by<br \/>\n\tthe appellant-petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant- original petitioner, an Officer of the United Bank<br \/>\n\tof India filed aforesaid Special Civil Application challenging the<br \/>\n\torder dated 29th December, 1986, of the Assistant General Manager<br \/>\n\t(Personnel), Disciplinary authority, under which he was ordered to<br \/>\n\tbe dismissed from the services on a misconduct which was found<br \/>\n\tproved against him in an inquiry held. The  petitioner has also<br \/>\n\tchallenged the order dated 19th June, 1987, of the appellate<br \/>\n\tauthority under which the appeal filed by him against the order of<br \/>\n\tdismissal has also been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide  memo dated 15th<br \/>\n\tNovember, 1982 of the disciplinary authority. As many as eight<br \/>\n\tcharges were there against the petitioner. He was served with<br \/>\n\tanother charge-sheet vide memo dated 4th July, 1983 of<br \/>\n\tthe disciplinary authority under which there were as many as six<br \/>\n\tcharges. The charges against the petitioner are of misappropriation<br \/>\n\tof the Bank fund for his own personal gains and  purposes. The<br \/>\n\tparties are in agreement that a joint inquiry has been held  on<br \/>\n\tboth  the charge-sheets given to the petitioner. However, the<br \/>\n\tinquiry officer has not given any  report on the  charges which were<br \/>\n\tthere against the petitioner under the second charge-sheet.  The<br \/>\n\tInquiry Officer found that the  charges  No.1,  2,  5 and 8 of the<br \/>\n\tfirst charge-sheet proved against the petitioner. The charges No.6<br \/>\n\tand 7 were found not proved. The disciplinary authority after<br \/>\n\tconsidering the charges, the  finding of the Inquiry Officer and the<br \/>\n\tevidence,  both oral and documentary, produced on the  record, under<br \/>\n\tits order dated  20th December, 1986, the penalty of<br \/>\n\tdismissal was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an<br \/>\n\tappeal against aforesaid order with the appellate authority and that<br \/>\n\t appeal  came  to  be dismissed vide order dated 19th June, 1987.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tbefore this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the<br \/>\n\tparties, held that learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to<br \/>\n\tcite any provision from the Regulations whereunder the assistance of<br \/>\n\tlawyer as well as personal hearing in the appeal was to be given to<br \/>\n\tthe appellant. Under Regulation 17 of the Regulations there is no<br \/>\n\tprovision that the appellant should be given an opportunity of<br \/>\n\tpersonal hearing. Only representation has to be filed and it is to<br \/>\n\tbe taken into consideration while passing the final order. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has not claimed any assistance of a lawyer during the<br \/>\n\tinquiry, but this prayer, as stated earlier, has been made by him in<br \/>\n\tthe appeal. So the petitioner has not considered the charges against<br \/>\n\thim to be grave and complicated which warrants any necessity of his<br \/>\n\tdefence to be made by a lawyer. It is also held that in the inquiry,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner has not claimed any such assistance, but he has<br \/>\n\tprayed for this assistance in the appeal. In the  appeal, the<br \/>\n\tappellate authority has to decide the mater without hearing any of<br \/>\n\tthe parties, and as such, the denial of assistance of a lawyer in<br \/>\n\tthe appeal cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or causing any<br \/>\n\tmiscarriage of justice or resulted in denial of defence. It is also<br \/>\n\theld that the case of the petitioner has been decided on the facts<br \/>\n\tof the case, and as stated earlier, the preliminary inquiry report<br \/>\n\twas sought to be produced by the petitioner at the stage of the<br \/>\n\texamination of the witness, and the petitioner has failed to<br \/>\n\testablish as to how this report is relevant and non-supply of the<br \/>\n\tsame has caused any prejudice to him and the Presenting  Officer of<br \/>\n\tthe management justified the non-supply of the copy of the<br \/>\n\tpreliminary inquiry report on the ground that it is not material for<br \/>\n\tthe purpose of the inquiry. It is also held that moreover, it is not<br \/>\n\tthe case of the petitioner that the preliminary inquiry\/<br \/>\n\tinvestigation   report has been relied in the inquiry against him as<br \/>\n\twell as the Inquiry Officer has given any finding on the charge<br \/>\n\trelying on this inquiry report, and the disciplinary authority has<br \/>\n\talso relied on this inquiry report. It is also held that from the<br \/>\n\tfinding of the Inquiry Officer, it is clear that the bank has<br \/>\n\tsuffered financial loss.  The petitioner admittedly has not raised<br \/>\n\tany objection against the Inquiry Officer at any  stage  till the<br \/>\n\tinquiry was completed  and  the  order of punishment has been made<br \/>\n\tagainst him.    This  grievance  has  been  made  by  the petitioner<br \/>\n\t admittedly only when he has been punished with the penalty of<br \/>\n\tdismissal, in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the appellant has mainly contended that the appellant<br \/>\n\twas not supplied the copy of the preliminary inquiry report and<br \/>\n\taccording to him, the Disciplinary authority has relied on para-2 of<br \/>\n\treport contending that I have gone through and considered the<br \/>\n\tfindings of the Enquiry Officer and the evidences both oral and<br \/>\n\tdocumentary produced and provided at the enquiry  and also other<br \/>\n\tconnected papers and I have applied my mind. Relying on the<br \/>\n\tunderlined sentence, learned advocate for the appellant submitted<br \/>\n\tthat it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority has not<br \/>\n\treferred such documents, which were not supplied to the delinquent.<br \/>\n\tThe  learned  counsel for the appellant contended that the order of<br \/>\n\tpenalty vitiates only on the ground that the assistance of a lawyer<br \/>\n\tas well as personal hearing was not afforded to the appellant by the<br \/>\n\tappellate authority in the appeal.   In  support  of  this<br \/>\n\tcontention, the counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the<br \/>\n\tdecision  of  this court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/645480\/\">Smt.  M.J. Mehta vs.<br \/>\n\tValsad-Dang Gramin Bank<\/a> reported in 1996(2) GLR 517, and the<br \/>\n\tdecision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of  J.K  Aggarwal<br \/>\n\tvs.Haryana Seeds  Development  Corporation Ltd.  reported in AIR<br \/>\n\t1991 SC 1221. It  has next  been  contended  that copy of<br \/>\n\tpreliminary inquiry report conducted by the  Officer,  Special<br \/>\n\tDepartment in Vigilance  Cell, has not been furnished to the<br \/>\n\tappellant, and as such, the principles of natural  justice  has<br \/>\n\tbeen violated. It has  next been contended that no financial loss<br \/>\n\thas been caused to the Bank by the  alleged misconduct  of the<br \/>\n\tappellant, and as such, the penalty of dismissal was not justified.<br \/>\n\t  Lastly, the counsel for the appellant contended that the<br \/>\n\tdisciplinary authority has taken into  consideration for giving the<br \/>\n\tpenalty of dismissal to the appellant, other papers which were not<br \/>\n\tthe part of the inquiry record.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order. The learned Single Judge in detailed has<br \/>\n\tdiscussed all the aforesaid contentions raised by learned advocate<br \/>\n\tfor the appellant and therefore, we do not think it fit to<br \/>\n\treappreciate the same and we fully concur with the findings recorded<br \/>\n\tby the learned Single Judge and we do not propose to interfere with<br \/>\n\tsuch findings. The submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the<br \/>\n\tappellant is too general in nature and we not inclined to accept the<br \/>\n\tsubmissions made by learned advocate for the appellant. No merit in<br \/>\n\tthe appeal and appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(BHAGWATI<br \/>\nPRASAD, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>pallav<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/369\/1997 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 369 of 1997 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3769 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-14T14:27:29+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T14:27:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1260,\"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\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-14T14:27:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-14T14:27:29+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T14:27:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010"},"wordCount":1260,"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\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010","name":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-14T14:27:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilip-vs-united-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilip vs United on 12 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103431","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=103431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}