{"id":104046,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-07-07T20:25:07","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T14:55:07","slug":"ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4969\/2009\t 8\/ 8\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. 4969 of 2009\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAMKRISHNA\nFATEHCHAND LALA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPOT\nMANAGER &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nMAMTA R VYAS for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nDS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :\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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, prayer is made by petitioner to direct the<br \/>\nrespondent to pay an amount of Rs.12,657\/- along with interest and to<br \/>\ndirect the respondent to deposit the said amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne<br \/>\nRecovery Application No.45 of 2006 Ex.9 Page 15 Annexure &#8216;A&#8217; was<br \/>\nfiled by petitioner before Labour Court, Surendranagar, where, prayer<br \/>\nwas made to direct respondent Corporation to pay R.19,931\/- to<br \/>\npresent petitioner by order dated 29th September 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThereafter,<br \/>\nanother Recovery Application No.316 of 2006 Page 18 was filed by<br \/>\npetitioner with a prayer to Labour Court, Surendranagar to issue<br \/>\nRecovery Certificate of the said amount of Rs.19,931\/- dated 17th<br \/>\nJanuary 2007. One SCA No.14757 of 2006 was filed by petitioner before<br \/>\nthis Court and this Court has issued notice to respondent<br \/>\nCorporation. On 29th March 2007, following order is passed<br \/>\nby this Court :\n<\/p>\n<p> 1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned Advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioner and Mr. Hardik<br \/>\nRaval for the respondent corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tClaim<br \/>\nof the petitioner is in respect of the difference of settlement<br \/>\nwhich comes to Rs.47927.00. Said claim of the petitioner has not been<br \/>\ndisputed by the respondent Corporation. As per the submission made by<br \/>\nthe learned Advocate Mr. Raval, number of employees are not receiving<br \/>\nsuch payment in time in view of the financial constraints of the<br \/>\nCorporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nconsidering the submissions  made by the learned Advocates for the<br \/>\nparties, respondent corporation is directed to pay Rs.47927.00 (Rs.<br \/>\nforty seven thousand nine hundred twenty seven only) to the<br \/>\npetitioner RAMKISHAN<br \/>\nFATECHAND LALA aged about 67 years within three months from the date<br \/>\nof receipt of copy of this order. This order has been passed by this<br \/>\ncourt considering peculiar facts of the case and the age of 67 years<br \/>\nof the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWith<br \/>\nthese observations and directions, this petition<br \/>\nis disposed of at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits<br \/>\nof the matter. D.S.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned advocate Mr.<br \/>\nHardik C. Rawal appeared on behalf of Corporation and before this<br \/>\nCourt, claim of petitioner which was considered being a difference of<br \/>\nsalary which comes to Rs.47,927\/- and said claim of petitioner has<br \/>\nnot been disputed by Corporation before this Court. Thereafter,<br \/>\nnotice has been served to Corporation by Advocate dated 23rd<br \/>\nMay 2008 claiming said amount from Corporation. The reply given by<br \/>\nDivisional Controller, Rajkot where total amount is required to paid<br \/>\nby Corporation to petitioner which comes to Rs.51,611\/- and out of<br \/>\nthat, difference of Earned Leave comes to Rs.19931\/- has been paid by<br \/>\norder dated 17th May 2007 and now, only amount is remained<br \/>\nto be paid Rs.31,680\/- which was also paid by cheque dated 3rd<br \/>\nOctober 2007. Therefore, according to Corporation, no amount is<br \/>\nrequired to be paid by Corporation to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThereafter,<br \/>\ncontempt proceeding has been filed by petitioner which has been<br \/>\ndisposed of with an observation that applicant shall take out<br \/>\nsubstantive proceedings in respect of his grievance.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAffidavit-in-reply<br \/>\nis filed by Account Officer of GSRTC, Rajkot Shri Jagdishbhai<br \/>\nJethalal. The relevant Para 3, 6 and 7 are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.\tI<br \/>\nsay that the petitioner is retired from the service on 31-5-1999. The<br \/>\nsettlement made between the corporation and the union came into<br \/>\nexistence in 1997 and the pay scale had been revised with effect from<br \/>\n7-9-2000. So, earlier the amount of Rs.19,931\/- has been paid to the<br \/>\npetitioner and that was without revising the pay scale as per the<br \/>\nsettlement. I say that thereafter the calculation made in settlement<br \/>\narrears of the petitioner and the same is as under :<\/p>\n<pre>\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\ndifference\nof leave encashment + DA = 62,512\n \n\n\namount\nof HRA\t\t\t\t\t\t=  1,939\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n 64,451\n \n\n\nAdvance\npayment\t\t\t\t\t- 10,000\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n 54,451\n \n\n\nProfessional\ntax\t\t\t\t\t-    340\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n 54,411\n \n\n\nAdvance\npayment\t\t\t\t\t-  2,500\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n 51,611\n \n\n\nPayment\nmade of leave encashment\t- 19,931\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n \n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n 31,680\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \tThe\n<\/pre>\n<p>said amount is paid on 3-10-2007. Hence, nothing remain to be paid to<br \/>\nthe petitioner. I annex herewith the settlement sheet here with and<br \/>\nmark as Annexure R1 to the reply.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tI<br \/>\nsay that total amount including difference of salary of leave, etc.,<br \/>\nRs.64,451\/- has been paid and now he can not claim in the petition<br \/>\nthat he is entitled to more amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tI<br \/>\nsay and submit that earlier also without giving proper amount of<br \/>\ncalculation, the petitioner got the order of paying Rs.47,927\/-. At<br \/>\nthat time also, he could have filed recovery application instead of<br \/>\nwrit petition. The Hon&#8217;ble High Court can not go into disputed<br \/>\nquestions of facts. Hence, as per our calculation which the<br \/>\npetitioner has also not disputed the full amount is paid and no<br \/>\namount is requires o be paid to the petitioner and the petition<br \/>\nrequires to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Against that, affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed by petitioner. The<br \/>\nrelevant Para 3 and 5 of rejoinder is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.\t\tWith<br \/>\nregard to para-3, I submit that the payment which is shown to have<br \/>\nbeen made to me, is not as per the rules. As such by an<br \/>\nadministrative order No.201\/1999, the amount of encashment of 33 days<br \/>\nin the year 1998 is not paid o me and this can be seen from the sheet<br \/>\nproduced for the period from 1.8.1997 to 31.7.2000. After the order<br \/>\ndtd.26.3.2007 passed by this Hon&#8217;ble Court in my earlier petition<br \/>\nbeing Spl.CA No.14757\/2006, when I received the cheque, I wrote a<br \/>\nletter on 11.10.2007 to the respondents informing that the amount of<br \/>\nleave encashment for the period between 1998-99 is not included and<br \/>\ntherefore, the calculation given by the respondent is not correct. A<br \/>\ncopy of the letter dtd.11.10.2007 is annexed hereto and marked Annex.<br \/>\n I  to this affidavit. It is further submitted that again by an<br \/>\norder dtd.1.2.2008, a request was made with a specific contention<br \/>\nthat 33-34 days leave encashment is not granted and therefore, there<br \/>\nis discrepancy in the amount. It is pertinent to note that under the<br \/>\nRight to Information act, I had requested for the details of the<br \/>\npayments made to me and then only the present sheet was supplied. I<br \/>\nagain by letters dtd.27.3.2008 and 10.4.2008 requested the<br \/>\nauthorities to pay the remaining dues. Copies of the letters<br \/>\ndtd.27.3.2008 and 10.04.2008 are annexed hereto and marked Annexu.<br \/>\n II  (Colly.) to this affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tI<br \/>\nrespectfully submit that I am entitled to get the total pay of<br \/>\nRs.12,011\/- (Rs.4013\/- pay + Rs.7,938\/- DA + Rs.60\/- old DA).<br \/>\nTherefore, the respondents are required to be directed to pay the<br \/>\nsame. It is further submitted that when the Hon&#8217;ble Court has passed<br \/>\nthe order, there is no question of filing a Recovery Application for<br \/>\nthis purpose. Even otherwise, I have retired way back on 7.9.2007 and<br \/>\ntherefore, after taking this fact into consideration, this Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nCourt has directed to pay the amount immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording<br \/>\nto petitioner, petitioner is entitled total amount of Rs.12,011\/-<br \/>\nmeans Rs.4013\/- Pay + Rs.7,938\/- DA + Rs.60\/- old DA. Therefore,<br \/>\naccording to petitioner, petitioner is entitled to recover the amount<br \/>\nof Rs.12,011\/- from Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates as well as<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply filed by Corporation and rejoinder filed by<br \/>\npetitioner. One fact is very clear that at the time when this Court<br \/>\nhas passed an order on 29th March 2007, the difference of<br \/>\nsettlement which amount comes to Rs.47,927\/-. That amount is not<br \/>\ndisputed by advocate of Corporation before this Court. Therefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, this much amount must have to be paid by<br \/>\nCorporation. Therefore, in light of this background and admission of<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. Raval before this Court and so long, this order<br \/>\nis not modified by this Court, the Corporation shall have to pay<br \/>\nRs.12,011\/- being a remaining amount to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms. Mandavia submitted that she has received one letter<br \/>\ndated 9th December 2009 from Junior Assistant Mr. Dangar,<br \/>\nAccount Branch of ST Corporation, Rajkot. Now petitioner is entitled<br \/>\nonly Rs.5,320\/- for a period of 33 days EL encashment for the year<br \/>\n1998-99.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms. Vyas is not accepting only this much amount, but,<br \/>\naccording to her submission, order passed by this Court where total<br \/>\namount is not disputed by Corporation, therefore, petitioner is<br \/>\nentitled for Rs.12,011\/- from Corporation which includes the<br \/>\naforesaid Rs.5,320\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nit is directed to Corporation to pay Rs.12,011\/- by account payee<br \/>\ncheque in name of petitioner including the amount of Rs.5,320\/- as<br \/>\nper letter dated 9th July 2009 from ST Corporation within<br \/>\na period of one month from date of receiving copy of present order,<br \/>\nafter proper verification.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of above observations and directions, present petition is<br \/>\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4969\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4969 of 2009 ========================================================= RAMKRISHNA FATEHCHAND LALA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus DEPOT MANAGER &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS [&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-104046","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T14:55:07+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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T14:55:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T14:55:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 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:\/\/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":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T14:55:07+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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T14:55:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2"},"wordCount":1409,"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\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2","name":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T14:55:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramkrishna-vs-depot-on-5-april-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramkrishna vs Depot on 5 April, 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:\/\/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\/104046","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=104046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}