{"id":107242,"date":"2011-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-20T21:39:31","modified_gmt":"2016-01-20T16:09:31","slug":"chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/81\/2008\t 10\/ 10\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. 81 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11230 of 2000\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1019 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 81 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH<\/a>\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\nCHIEF\nOFFICER, - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHERAJHUSEN\nLALUMIYA MALEK & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR YV SHAH for Appellant(s) :\n1, \nMR.HIREN M MODI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nRULE SERVED for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \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 V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate<\/a>\n: 29\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tWe
\nhave heard Mr Y V Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr
\nHiren Modi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1
\n& 2.  The appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
\nimpugned order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.11230 of 2000, has preferred this
\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe brief facts of this
\ncase are that the appellant is Dehgam Municipality duly constituted
\nunder the provisions  of the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963.  The
\nrespondents were recruited as daily wager Peons and Naka Clerk in the
\nOctroi department of the appellant Municipality and they have worked
\nfor more than 240 days in each year and the respondents were
\nillegally retrenched from service respectively with effect from
\n1.1.1991 and with effect from 23.11.1992 without giving any notice.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe Labour Court,
\nAhmedabad had passed award on 25.6.1997 in Reference (LCA) No.2083 of
\n1993 directing the appellant to reinstate the respondents with full
\nback wages.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said ex-parte
\naward, the appellant has challenged the same by preferring Special
\nCivil Application No.11230 of 2000.  The learned Single Judge has
\ndismissed the said Special Civil Application vide order dated
\n9.7.2007 and hence the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been
\npreferred by the present appellant.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tLearned counsel for the
\nappellant has vehemently submitted that the Labour Court and the
\nlearned Single Judge ought to have considered that the Registered
\nPost with Acknowledgement Due notices were not duly served upon the
\nappellant Municipality by the Labour Court to file written statement
\nin both the References and no copy of statement of claims has ever
\nbeen served upon the appellant Municipality and no reasonable
\nopportunity of defence has ever been granted to the appellant
\nMunicipality before passing the ex-parte award dated 25.6.1997 in
\nReference (LCA) No.2024 of 1993 and Reference (LCA) No. 2084 of 1993.
\n Learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that respondent
\nNo.1 was appointed as daily wage peon between 23.7.1985 and
\n31.12.1990 for a limited period and has never worked for more than
\n240 days of service in any year and particularly in a preceding year
\nfrom the date of alleged retrenchment and, therefore, no question of
\nnotice or notice pay and payment of retrenchment compensation arises
\nunder the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, respondent
\nNo.1 has no right to claim such benefits.  So far as respondent No.2
\nis concerned, he had worked only for 11 days during the leave vacancy
\nand thus the impugned ex- parte award cannot be enforced against the
\nappellant Municipality.  Learned counsel for the appellant has then
\nsubmitted that the ex-parte award passed
\nby the Labour Court is grossly perverse and without jurisdiction and
\nno evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that they
\nhad made efforts to get alternative job to mitigate the loss and not
\ngainfully employed elsewhere and they have not filed any affidavit
\nunder
\nsection 17B of the Act.  He has further submitted that the
\nrespondents have never completed 240 days’ service and therefore, the
\nappellant Municipality is not obliged to comply with the provisions
\nof section 25F of the Act.  Moreover, the Octroi department is
\nalready closed and when there is no work at all, it is practically
\nimpossible to reinstate the respondents and as the ex-parte award
\ncannot be implemented in any circumstances, this matter should be
\nremanded to  the Labour  Court to decide the Reference afresh on
\nmerits.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tLearned counsel for the
\nrespondents has placed reliance on Rule 26A and 26B of the Industrial
\nDisputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and submitted
\nthat it is already provided in the said Rules that which steps one
\ncould take from the date of knowledge of an ex parte order and as the
\nappellant  had not chosen to take the benefit of the said provision
\nunder the Rules, at this stage, the submission for remand to decide
\nthe Reference on merits afresh should not be considered.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tWe have considered the
\nabove referred rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the
\nparties.  The learned Single Judge had observed in paras 3 and 4 of
\norder dated 9.7.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No.11230 of
\n2000 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“3.  So
\nfar as the question of service of notice upon the petitioner  is
\nconcerned, the petitioner,  for the reasons best
\nknown to them, but for making a statement that no notices were issued
\nto them, have not tried to file copy of the proceedings recorded  by
\nthe Labour Court, copies of the Summons issued by the Labour Court
\nand service report submitted by the process server to the Labour
\nCourt. If such documents were filed before  this Court, the court, in
\nsuch circumstances, at least  make an inquiry
\nthat in fact, the lower court was justified or not in proceeding
\nex-parte.  So far as  the question of sufficiency of of cause is
\nconcerned, I do not think that this Court would be entitled to look
\ninto  the sufficiency of the cause for  absence, because, that would
\nhave been in the domain of the first court, if an application for
\nsetting aside ex-parte order \/ award was made before that Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSo far as
\nthe merits of the matter are concerned, learned Labour Court has
\nfound and as a fact that the respondent had worked for more than 240
\ndays  in 12 calender months preceding the date of
\nretrenchment\/illegal removal. If such were unimpeachable facts and
\nthere was no controversy against the truth of the fact, the court
\nbelow cannot be condemned with an allegation that it faulted in
\nmaking the award.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tConsidering the above
\nfacts on record, we are unable to digest the submissions made by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought
\nto have called for the Records & Proceedings from the Labour
\nCourt before passing the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 and to verify
\nthe allegations whether notices as required under the law were ever
\nserved upon the appellant Municipality.  Under this circumstances, it
\nis important to refer to Rule 26A and 26B of the Rules, 1966 for
\nconsideration of this  case and the same are extracted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“R. 26A.\n<\/p>\n
Setting aside ex-parte orders, awards and reports – (1) On
\nan application made within thirty days from the date of knowledge of
\nan ex-parte order, award or report by the party concerned, the Board,
\nCourt, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may, for sufficient
\ncause; set aside after notice to the opposite party such order, award
\nor report, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The Board, Court,
\nLabour Court, Tribunal, or Arbitrator may on sufficient cause being
\nshown, extend the period referred to in sub-rule (1).\n<\/p>\n
(3)  An application under
\nsub-rule, (1) shall be supported by an affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
R. 26B. Stay of operation
\nof awards –  The Labour
\nCourt Tribunal or Arbitrator shall have the power to stay the
\noperation of an award conditionally
\nor otherwise in appropriate cases, until the application for setting
\naside ex-parte orders is disposed off finally.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIf
\nwe peruse the above referred  Rules, it is clear that if a party has
\nany grudge with the ex-parte order, award or report by the Board,
\nCourt or Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator had been passed then
\nfrom the date of the knowledge of the said ex-parte oder
\nshowing sufficient cause one can proceed further for setting aside
\nthe said award before the relevant Board, Court, Labour Court,
\nTribunal or Arbitrator. But leaving all these aspects aside, the
\npresent appellant Municipality has preferred to rush to the High
\nCourt by filing Special Civil Application No.11230 of 2000.  In our
\nview, the appellant Municipality wants to shift the burden cast upon
\nit on the High Court by submitting that the record and proceedings
\nhad not been called for by the concerned court to see that whether
\nthe notices had been duly served on the appellant Municipality or
\nnot.  But the learned Single Judge has rightly observed in para 3
\nreferred above that the appellant could have produced the relevant
\ncopies or certified copies of the record and proceedings of the trial
\ncourt to meet with his case but as he has utterly failed to do so,
\nthe appellant should blame only himself  and none else.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following
\nreported decisions of the Hon’ble the Apex Court as well as
\nof this High Court out of which he has cited the case of
\nHManshukumar Vidyarthi and Others  v. State of Bihar and
\nothers (1997) 4 SCC 391 in
\nwhich it has been held that the petitioners were not appointed to the
\npost on daily wages in accordance with the Rules but were engaged on
\nthe basis of need of the work. Another decision in the case of Halvad
\nNagarpalika & Others v. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai &
\nOthers<\/a> (2003) 2 GLH 397 in
\nwhich it has been held that appointments were made without following
\nany legal procedure or statutory or recruitment policy and in that
\nevent it is not material whether the workmen have completed the
\nservice of 240 days in a year or not.  The third decision on which
\nreliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is the
\ncase of Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr.  v. Avas Vikas
\nSansthan Engineers Assn. & Ors<\/a> 2006 (3) 583 in
\nwhich it has been held that where a project has been shut down due to
\nwant of funds the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be directed
\nto continue employing such employees. Finally the  learned counsel
\nfor the appellant has relied on para 17 of a decision in the case of
\nRanip Nagar Palika  v. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors.
\n(2008 AIR SCW 449) on the
\npoint of remand of the case.  Para 17 is extracted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“17.  There was need
\nfor factual adjudication on the basis of the materials adduced by the
\nparties. That apparently has not been done. We therefore set aside
\nthe orders of the Labour Court, learned Single Judge and Division
\nBench of the High Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court to
\nconsider the matter afresh.  It has to specifically record a finding
\nas to whether the claim of the workmen of continuance of service is
\nacceptable. It has also to be decided as to whether the workmen had
\ncompleted 240 days of service. The decision is vital to see whether
\nsection 25F of the Act has any relevance.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tWe
\nhave carefully perused the above referred decisions and there is no
\ndispute with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as of this
\nCourt but in our considered view, the same are not of any help to the
\npresent appellant and are not required to be taken into consideration
\nbecause it is the fact that the Labour Court was compelled to pass
\nex-parte order as referred above and moreover, the present appellant
\nhas not chosen to file restoration application under the provisions
\nof Rule 26A  and 26B of the Rules and chosen to prefer a wrong forum
\nby filing Special Civil Application No. 11230 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tIt
\nis the say of the appellant that the Labour Court had never served
\nregistered A.D. Notice upon the Chief Officer of the Municipality to
\nfile written statement.  We have carefully perused the award dated
\n25.6.1997 passed in Reference (LCA) No.2024\/1993 and Reference
\n(LCA) No.2083\/1993. The learned counsel for the respondent
\nhas drawn our attention to paragraph No.3 of the said award and
\nsubmitted that it has been specifically mentioned by the Presiding
\nOfficer that on behalf of first litigant i.e. Dahegam Nagarpalika the
\nwritten statement in Reference (LCA) No.2024\/1993 was not filed but
\nit had filed the written statement in Reference (LCA) No.2083\/1993
\nbut the exhibit number to the said written statement had not been
\ngiven because the same was filed at a very belated stage and the
\nsecond litigant had taken objection for taking the said written
\nstatement on record and thus the first litigant
\ni.e. Dahegam Municipality had remained negligent to see that the said
\nwritten statement be taken on record and be exhibited but they had
\nnot taken any interest regarding the same.  If we consider the above
\nfacts emerged from the record, it is clear that a  totally wrong
\ndefence had been taken by the present appellant that the Labour Court
\nhad not served registered A.D. notice upon the Chief Officer of the
\nMunicipality to file written statement but it is clear that the
\nappellant itself remained negligent and in our view he should thank
\nitself for the same. Under the circumstances, we do not find any
\nillegality either in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
\nJudge or in the award passed by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIn the result, this
\nappeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Application No.
\n1019 of 2008<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nview of the order passed in the main Appeal, this Civil Application
\nNo.1019 of 2008 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
\nRule is discharged.  The ad-interim relief stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[V
\n M SAHAI, J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[G
\nB  SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
msp<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/81\/2008 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 81 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11230 of 2000 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1019 of 2008 […]<\/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-107242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 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\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-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=\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-20T16:09:31+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T16:09:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2155,\"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\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T16:09:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 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\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-20T16:09:31+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T16:09:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011"},"wordCount":2155,"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\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011","name":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T16:09:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-vs-maherajhusen-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief vs Maherajhusen on 29 April, 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:\/\/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\/107242","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=107242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}