{"id":10889,"date":"2008-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-01T21:57:17","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T16:27:17","slug":"appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J.R.Vora,&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\nCR.MA\/78320\/2000\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\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 783 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA\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\nRAJUBHAI\n@ RAJESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI KUNDARIA (PATEL) \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; ANR\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nYOGESH S LAKHANI for Applicant \nMR L.B. DABHI\nAPP for Respondent No. 1 \nMR CL SONI for Respondent\nNo.2 \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 J.R.VORA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n                      Date\n:    22\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tPresent<br \/>\npetition is preferred by original accused  of `M&#8217;  Case No. 62 of<br \/>\n1999, to quash the said case,  pending before the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, at Dhoraji, exercising powers by this Court<br \/>\nunder Section  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tAs<br \/>\nper brief facts of the case,  present respondent No.2 &#8211;  Vrujlal<br \/>\nGordhanbhai Dhaduk, presented a private complaint before  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, against the petitioner  for the offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 420 and  406 of  the Indian Penal Code.  It<br \/>\nwas alleged in the complaint that  accused   petitioner was  truck<br \/>\ndriver of the truck bearing Regn. No. GJ-3-T-4024 owned by the<br \/>\ncomplainant   respondent No.2 and that truck was handed over to the<br \/>\npetitioner   as a driver and who had taken the truck on 01st<br \/>\n of October,  1999, for 15 days at Bhopal and the petitioner was to<br \/>\nreturn at Dhoraji, on 16th of October, 1999. Complainant<br \/>\nand his brother   inquired about the  petitioner as he did not return<br \/>\n to Dhoraji in time, but whereabouts of the petitioner, according to<br \/>\nallegation, were not available and his wife was  evasive.<br \/>\nUltimately, complainant   respondent No.2 came to know that the<br \/>\npetitioner was in habit of  gambling and since he lost in gambling,<br \/>\nhe had sold the said truck  to somebody, which was worth of Rs. 4<br \/>\nlacs and, hence, complaint for the offences punishable under Sections<br \/>\n420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.  On 29th of October,<br \/>\n1999,   learned Magistrate,  First Class, Dhoraji, forwarded this<br \/>\ncomplaint to the Police Sub-Inspector, Patanvav Police Station, for<br \/>\ninvestigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nand to  report and,  hence,  this petition for quashing the said<br \/>\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr. Harnish Darji for learned Advocate Mr. Y.S. Lakhani<br \/>\nfor the petitioner,  learned Advocate Mr. C.L. Soni for original<br \/>\ncomplainant   respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for<br \/>\nthe respondent No.1 State were heard at length.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the petitioner argued that the theory, which  was<br \/>\nadvanced by the complainant is falsified by the statutory record as<br \/>\ncertificate issued by RTO Office, copy of which  is produced on<br \/>\nrecord,  denotes that the said truck was sold even on 6th<br \/>\nof July, 1999 to one person  named as Jayeshbhai  Chaturbhai Patel<br \/>\nand necessary entries are made in RTO records. It was submitted that<br \/>\nthe petitioner had partnership  with the complaint  in respect of<br \/>\nthis truck and it was agreed that the petitioner should pay all the<br \/>\ninstallments   of the finance   as the truck was purchased in the<br \/>\nname of the complainant by taking loan from finance and accordingly<br \/>\nthe petitioner has paid up all the installments  to the finance<br \/>\ncompany and got released the truck from the finance.   The<br \/>\npetitioner,  as being owner of the said truck, sold the truck on 09th<br \/>\nof July, 1999  and, therefore,  the question of taking the truck by<br \/>\nthe petitioner  as a driver  on 1st of October, 1999 would<br \/>\nnot arise.  It is also submitted that the petitioner is not  the<br \/>\ntruck driver, but he is doing the business of contractor and supplier<br \/>\nof the material for construction and petitioner has many vehicles in<br \/>\nthe name of his family,  and as such, he had no occasion to serve as<br \/>\ndriver.   It is submitted that, therefore, the complaint  is the<br \/>\nabuse of process of law and is required to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAs<br \/>\nagainst that, learned Advocate Mr. C.L. Soni    for the respondent<br \/>\nNo.2   complainant  submitted that the truck stood in the name of<br \/>\nthe complainant   respondent No.2, which is evident from the ARTO<br \/>\nrecord and owned by respondent No.2.  Accused was never the owner of<br \/>\nthe  truck and he could not have sold  the truck to third party.   It<br \/>\nis submitted that this truck was financed by Ashok Leyland  and the<br \/>\nreceipts which are produced on record of this petition are of  Riddhi<br \/>\nFinance,  which is  a matter of investigation, and at this stage,<br \/>\nwhen investigation is pending, no interference  is required by this<br \/>\nCourt exercising  extraordinary  powers.  Otherwise also, it is not<br \/>\nthe case of the accused   petitioner that the complainant was not<br \/>\nthe owner of the truck.  Learned Advocate for the respondent No.2<br \/>\nrelied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of STATE OF<br \/>\nHARYANA  AND  ORS  vs.  BHAJANLAL AND ORS., as reported in 1992 Supp<br \/>\n(1) SCC 335.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tWhile<br \/>\nlearned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi  submitted that there is   grievance of<br \/>\nthe offences having been committed by the accused,   which is still<br \/>\nto be investigated  and, hence,  interference, at this stage,   may<br \/>\nnot be required under extraordinary  powers of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tSection\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,  1973,   confers  sufficient<br \/>\nand independent powers on the High Curt alone to pass orders ex<br \/>\ndebito justitiae  in cases where<br \/>\n grave and  substantial injustice has been done or where  the process<br \/>\nof court   has been seriously abused.   It is also well settled  that<br \/>\nthe inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to<br \/>\nthe litigant and not where the specific remedy is provided in the<br \/>\nstatute.   It is also true that  the power,   quashing a  criminal<br \/>\nproceeding,  should be exercised  very sparingly and with<br \/>\ncircumspection,  and that too, in the rarest of rare cases that the<br \/>\ncourt will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry  as to the<br \/>\nreliability of genuineness or otherwise of the allegations  made in<br \/>\nthe complaint\/FIR,  and  that the extraordinary or inherent powers,<br \/>\ndo not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act<br \/>\naccording to its whim or caprice.  At the same time, wherever  it is<br \/>\nfound by the court, ex facie,  that there is   abuse of process of<br \/>\ncourt and that to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary  to<br \/>\nexercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nprocedure, the court must exercise such powers, wherein it is found<br \/>\nthat the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and<br \/>\ninherently   improbable, on the basis of which,  a prudent man   can<br \/>\nreach  to a just conclusion  that there is no  sufficient ground for<br \/>\nproceeding against the accused.  In such cases, when complaint does<br \/>\nnot make out any case against the accused, if the powers are not<br \/>\nexercised under Section 482 of the  Criminal Procedure Code by the<br \/>\nHigh Court, such accused will have to undergo  the agony of a<br \/>\ncriminal trial,  which would itself  amount of abuse of process of<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tWhile<br \/>\n going through the facts of this case, what is transpired  from the<br \/>\nrecord  is that, the allegation is in respect of misappropriation<br \/>\nand causing  cheating towards complainant by the accused.   What is<br \/>\nstated in the complaint by respondent No.2  is all together against<br \/>\nthe  statutory record and, therefore, is improbable.  True it is<br \/>\nthat, the name of the respondent No.2   complainant  appears  in<br \/>\nRTO book  of  truck bearing No.  GJ-3-T-4024,  at  the same time,<br \/>\nthe same record discloses that this truck was transferred on 6th<br \/>\nof  July, 1999 to one Jayeshbhai  Chaturbhai  Patel.  Jayeshbhai<br \/>\nChaturbhai Patel    has filed an affidavit  to the effect that he had<br \/>\npurchased this truck from present petitioner   original accused on<br \/>\n09th of July, 1999.  The petitioner has also submitted on<br \/>\nrecord  receipts of the installments  paid to  Riddhi Finance Company<br \/>\nin respect  of the said truck. Now, these facts of the record  makes<br \/>\nit improbable  that as a driver of the truck, petitioner  might have<br \/>\ntaken the truck  on 1st  of October, 1999 and might have<br \/>\nsold.   Therefore,   without embarking upon any inquiry, it is<br \/>\ncrystal clear that   the theory advanced in the complaint is so<br \/>\nimprobable that no prudent man would reach to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthere are grounds to  proceed  against  the accused. No explanation<br \/>\nat all  is found in the complaint   as to diametrically  opposite<br \/>\nfacts contained in the statutory  record.  In  this  view  of  the<br \/>\nmatter, this Court can come safely to the conclusion that there are<br \/>\nno grounds at all to proceed against  the accused  even from the<br \/>\ncontents of the complaint and, hence,   the complaint being abuse of<br \/>\nprocess of the court, is required to be quashed and, hence, the<br \/>\nfollowing order is passed :\n<\/p>\n<p>  This<br \/>\nCriminal Misc. Application is allowed.  Criminal Inquiry Case No. 62<br \/>\nof 1999 and `M&#8217; Case No. 62 of 1999 pending before the  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, at Dhoraji,   as filed by the respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 against the present petitioner,  for the offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,  is directed to<br \/>\nbe quashed  along with the orders passed by learned  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, Dhoraji, to forward the said complaint  to<br \/>\nthe Police Sub-Inspector, Patanvav Police Station, to investigate<br \/>\nunder Section 156(3) of  the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Rule<br \/>\nmade absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(J.\n<\/p>\n<p>R. VORA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>pnnair<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008 Author: J.R.Vora,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/78320\/2000 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 783 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-10889","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 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\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-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=\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T16:27:17+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\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T16:27:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1460,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T16:27:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 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":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 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\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T16:27:17+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\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T16:27:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008"},"wordCount":1460,"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\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008","name":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T16:27:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-bhajanlal-and-ors-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance : vs Bhajanlal And Ors. on 22 August, 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\/10889","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=10889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}