{"id":108322,"date":"2008-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-17T14:51:55","modified_gmt":"2015-06-17T09:21:55","slug":"gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008<\/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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/4451\/2008\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 4451 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 9501 of 2007\n \n\nIn\nFIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 232 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMANEKBEN\nWD\/O RAMANBHAI BHURIDAS PATEL &amp; 5 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nSEJAL K MANDAVIA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1, 3,5 - 6. \nMR TEJAS\nP SATTA for Defendant(s) : 2, 4, \nMR JAYESH V PATEL for\nDefendant(s) : 2,\n4, \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: 16\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Ms.Trusha  Mehta for learned advocate Ms.Mandavia on<br \/>\nbehalf of appellant ?  ST Corporation and learned advocate Mr.Tejas<br \/>\nP. Satta for respondent Nos.2 and 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\nthe present appeal, the appellant ?  Corporation has challenged the<br \/>\naward passed by MAC Tribunal, Gandhinagar in MACP No.367 of 2004 (New<br \/>\nNumber) dated 20.4.2006 Exh.43 whereby the claims Tribunal has<br \/>\nawarded Rs.3,41,000 with 7.5% interest in favour of respondents<br \/>\nclaimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms.Mehta has raised contention before this Court that 10%<br \/>\nnegligence is established of the deceased, even though 10% deduction<br \/>\nis not made in the award of compensation by the claims Tribunal. She<br \/>\nalso submitted that Rs.3,41,000\/- is a compensation considering<br \/>\nRs.3,06,000\/- dependency loss; Rs.10,000\/- towards the pain, shock<br \/>\nand suffering; Rs.10,000\/- for love and affection and Rs.10,000\/- for<br \/>\nloss of life and Rs.5000\/- for funeral expenses and therefore, she<br \/>\nsubmitted that basic error committed by the claims Tribunal. She also<br \/>\nraised contention that claims Tribunal has committed gross error in<br \/>\ndeciding 90% negligence of ST Bus driver. She also submitted that<br \/>\nmultiplier of 15 is on higher side looking to the age of the deceased<br \/>\nas 38 years, particularly when income was not proved by claimants<br \/>\nwith cogent evidence and therefore, the claims Tribunal has committed<br \/>\ngross error in assessing the income of the deceased. She also<br \/>\nsubmitted that claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated the<br \/>\nPanchnama where driver of the ST Bus not remained careless and there<br \/>\nwas no rashness and negligent driving of the ST Bus driver at the<br \/>\ntime when the accident occurred. She relied upon the decision of Apex<br \/>\nCourt reported in AIR 2005 SC 4425 and AIR 2006 SC 2688  Except that,<br \/>\nno other contention raised by learned advocate Ms.Mehta before this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Satta appearing on behalf of respondents claimant<br \/>\nsupported the award passed by claims Tribunal and submitted that<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence which were on<br \/>\nrecord and has rightly applied multiplier of 15 and has rightly<br \/>\nassessed the income with future prospect. For that, according to him,<br \/>\nthe claims Tribunal has not committed any error while awarding the<br \/>\ncompensation in favour of respondents claimants and that he is also<br \/>\nprepared to deduct 10% amount from total compensation awarded by<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal as 10% negligence is established of the deceased<br \/>\nbefore the claims Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates<br \/>\nand also perused the award passed by claims Tribunal. The accident<br \/>\noccurred on 27.3.1991 where the deceased Ramanbhai was going on his<br \/>\nscooter to house   with a moderate speed and with care and caution.<br \/>\nAt that occasion, from opposite side, ST Bus No.GJ-1-T-9855 came with<br \/>\nrash and negligent manner and dashed with the front portion of the ST<br \/>\nBus on wrong side to the scooter and due to that, deceased received<br \/>\nserious injuries and died on the spot. To some extent, the ST Bus has<br \/>\ndragged the scooter and that is how, the accident occurred and<br \/>\ndeceased died on the spot. At the time of accident, deceased was aged<br \/>\nabout 34 years and was hale and hearty and was a partner in M\/s.Patel<br \/>\nKantilal and brothers and also working as a Manager in Vikram<br \/>\nTraders. The deceased was having the agricultural land and also<br \/>\nearning Rs. 35,000\/- to Rs.40,000\/- per year. The claimants have<br \/>\nclaimed Rs.5 lacs with 18% interest. The appellant ?  Corporation<br \/>\nfiled reply vide Exh.11 and evidence of Manekben, wd\/o of deceased<br \/>\nwas taken vide Exh.32. Thereafter, certain documents were produced by<br \/>\nclaimants before the claims Tribunal. Vide Exh.30, receipt of payment<br \/>\nof advance tax of the partnership firm for the year 1988-89 is<br \/>\nproduced. The birth date certificate also produced before the claims<br \/>\nTribunal. The claims Tribunal has examined complaint vide Exh.19 and<br \/>\nvide Exh.20 Panchnama and vide Exh.22 ST Bus panchnama and<br \/>\nthereafter, considering the evidence of the claimant, the claims<br \/>\nTribunal has come to the conclusion that in absence of evidence of<br \/>\nthe ST Bus driver, while considering the complaint and panchnama, the<br \/>\nscooter which was driven in the middle portion of the road,<br \/>\ntherefore, to some extent, the scooter driver is also negligent and<br \/>\nas the ST Bus coming from opposite side, dashed with front portion<br \/>\nand dragged the scooter and due to that deceased died on the spot,<br \/>\ntherefore the claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that ST Bus<br \/>\ndriver is required to be held negligent to the extent of 90%.<br \/>\nThereafter, the claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the<br \/>\ndeceased and after considering the evidence on record, the claims<br \/>\nTribunal has assessed Rs.1500\/- and Rs.200\/- from supervision in<br \/>\nagricultural field, Rs.1700\/- has been considered as notional income<br \/>\nof the deceased. PM Note has been produced vide Exh.23 and looking to<br \/>\nthe birth date of the deceased ?  1.6.1952, deceased was 38 years<br \/>\nold at the time of accident and therefore, the claims Tribunal has<br \/>\napplied multiplier of 15 and after deducting  1\/3rd for<br \/>\nassessing the income with future prospect, Rs.1700\/- comes to<br \/>\ndependency and total comes to Rs.3,06,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention raised by learned advocate Ms.Mehta that multiplier of 15<br \/>\nis on higher side. The claims Tribunal has examined the matter in<br \/>\nlight of the fact that it was an accident of 1991 and matter remain<br \/>\npending before the claims Tribunal for more than 15 years. The<br \/>\ndeceased was having the income which considered to be notional  at<br \/>\nRs.1700\/- and after considering the future prospect, it comes to<br \/>\nRs.5100\/- and after deducting 1\/3rd, it comes to<br \/>\nRs.1700\/-. So considering the income which was assessed by the claims<br \/>\nTribunal, multiplier of 15 cannot be considered on higher side<br \/>\nbecause the income of the deceased was not more than Rs.2000\/-. So<br \/>\nconsidering the income, multiplier of 15 is taking the care to have<br \/>\nultimate compensation which will be invested in the bank, then<br \/>\nclaimant may able to get a net result of interest which is almost to<br \/>\nthe monthly income of the deceased. Looking to the total amount of<br \/>\nRs.3,41,000\/- after deducting 10%, it comes to Rs.3,06,900\/- and if<br \/>\nit is invested in the bank, then claimant may able to get at least<br \/>\nround about Rs.2000\/-  as an interest which almost equal to the<br \/>\nsalary of the deceased and that is the purpose to give compensation<br \/>\nto the claimants, so they may able to receive the interest which is<br \/>\nalmost equal to salary or income of the deceased. Similar view has<br \/>\nbeen taken by this Court in a decision reported in 2006 (11) GHJ 552.<br \/>\nTherefore, the claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the age of the deceased as 38 years and<br \/>\nalso rightly assessed the dependency after considering the future<br \/>\nprospect of income. For that, the claims Tribunal has not committed<br \/>\nany error.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal has, considering the evidence on record, has<br \/>\nattributed 90% negligence to the driver of ST Bus. Looking to the<br \/>\nPanchnama, the scooter which was driven in the middle portion of the<br \/>\nroad, therefore, the driver of the scooter was also held negligent<br \/>\nand responsible to some  extent. However, the ST Bus being a big<br \/>\nvehicle, the driver of the ST Bus should have to take more care while<br \/>\n driving the bus and that charge sheet was filed against the ST<br \/>\ndriver that itself proves the negligence of ST driver. Therefore, the<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding 10% negligent<br \/>\nof the deceased and 90% of the ST driver. Therefore, the contention<br \/>\nwhich was raised by learned advocate Ms.Mehta cannot be accepted and<br \/>\nsame is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt<br \/>\nis necessary to note that so far as the question of negligence is<br \/>\nconcerned, the driver is the only person, who can explain as to how<br \/>\nthe accident took place. In facts of present case, the driver was not<br \/>\nexamined before the claims Tribunal. Therefore, the claims Tribunal<br \/>\nhas considered the panchnama and complaint and on that basis, the<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal has come to the conclusion. Therefore, the claims<br \/>\nTribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. For that,<br \/>\nclaims Tribunal has not committed any error which requires<br \/>\ninterference by this Court. Considering the consent given by learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Satta, for deduction of 10% amount for the negligence of<br \/>\nthe deceased from the total awarded amount, therefore, Rs.34,100\/- is<br \/>\nordered to be deducted from total amount of compensation of<br \/>\nRs.3,41,000\/- and now, the appellant ?  Corporation shall have to<br \/>\npay Rs.3,06,900\/- with 7.5% interest and with cost to the respondents<br \/>\nclaimants. Accordingly, award is modified to the aforesaid extent.<br \/>\nAccordingly, present appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.<br \/>\nThe amount of Rs.25,000\/- deposited with this Court for the purpose<br \/>\nof appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tAs the First Appeal No.4451 of 2008 is dismissed, no order is necessitated in Civil Application No.9501 of 2007. Accordingly, Civil Application No.9501 of 2007 is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,J.) <\/p>\n<p>(vipul)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/4451\/2008 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4451 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9501 of 2007 In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 232 of 2007 ========================================================= GUJARAT [&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-108322","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>Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-17T09:21:55+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T09:21:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1484,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T09:21:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-17T09:21:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T09:21:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008"},"wordCount":1484,"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\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008","name":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T09:21:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-manekben-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Manekben on 16 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/108322","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=108322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}