{"id":110355,"date":"2010-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-17T18:29:44","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T12:59:44","slug":"premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/342\/2009\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\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 342 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nPREMADEVI\nAVINASHSINGH & 3 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPJ MEHTA for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 4. \nMR BIPIN I MEHTA for Defendant(s) :\n1, \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant has brought under challenge, an order dated 05.05.2005
\n\tpassed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench),
\n\tAhmedabad in CA No. OA 0300161 and Miscellaneous Civil Application
\n\tNo. MX300033. The learned Tribunal has rejected both the
\n\tapplications being CA No. OA 0300161 and Miscellaneous Civil
\n\tApplication No. MX300033 on the short and sole ground that the
\n\tapplicant had preferred two different\/ separate claim-petition
\n\tapplications in respect of the same accident and same victims and in
\n\tthe following application i.e. the second application the applicants
\n\thad made a declaration to the effect that  We the applicants above
\n\tnamed solemnly declare that: (a) the particulars given above are
\n\ttrue and correct to the best of our knowledge and (b) we have not
\n\tclaimed or obtained any compensation in relation to the death which
\n\tis the subject matter of this application .\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tother words, on the ground that the second claim in respect of the
\n\tsame accident was made by the same person\/ appellant (as the
\n\tbeneficiary of the victim)  in respect of one and the same accident,
\n\tthe learned Tribunal observed that  we are of the firm view that
\n\tthe applicant(s) have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands
\n\tand more so, by making false statements and declaration, they have
\n\tmade themselves liable for penal action under Section 148 of the
\n\tRailways Act, 1989 , and with such observations, rejected both the
\n\tclaims applications.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved
\n\tby the said order the appellant has preferred this application
\n\tbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr.P.J.Mehta has appeared for the appellants and learned
\n\tadvocate Mr.B.I.Mehta has appeared for the opponent   Union of
\n\tIndia. Heard learned counsels of the contesting parties.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr.P.J.Mehta on behalf of appellants submitted that, the
\n\tlearned Tribunal is not right in its observation and conclusion that
\n\tthe applicant had preferred second application for the same claim
\n\tand in respect of the same accident and the same victim. He tried to
\n\tsubmit that the cause of action of the applicant in both
\n\tapplications was different. He also referred to the Railway Claims
\n\tTribunal Procedure Rules and submitted that it was the obligation of
\n\tthe Registry to examine and verify the claims and the applications.
\n\tLearned Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claims only on
\n\tthe ground that two applications were filed for the claims and
\n\tbenefits in respect of same accident. He denied the allegation that
\n\ttwo claim applications for the same cause of action had been
\n\tpreferred.\n<\/p>\n
He
\n\talso tried to blame the registry of the Tribunal and submitted that
\n\twhen the registry had checked both applications and then circulated
\n\tthe applications for hearing, the applications could not have been
\n\tdismissed on that ground and if at all there was any fault the
\n\tregistry should have defected it and should not have circulated the
\n\tapplications. He prayed that the order is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr.B.I.Mehta for the Union of India has contested and
\n\topposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal is
\n\tjustified in dismissing the claim applications. He submitted that
\n\tthe intention of the appellant was to deceive the opponent and to
\n\treceive double benefit for the same cause. Mr.B.I.Mehta has also
\n\tsubmitted that the applications were unsustainable in law also for
\n\tthe reason that the provisions under the Railways Act, 1989 and
\n\tunder the Railway Claims Tribunal Procedure Rules require the
\n\tapplicant to make the declaration that the facts stated in the
\n\tapplication are true, complete and correct and in the event,
\n\tdeclaration is found to be incorrect, as a consequence, the
\n\tapplication can be dismissed. Therefore, the order of the learned
\n\tTribunal is well justified.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.B.I.Mehta,
\n\tlearned advocate for the Union of India has submitted that the
\n\tapplicant has made these applications with malafide intentions to
\n\textract more money. Mr.B.I.Mehta has also submitted that the order
\n\tdoes not warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
While
\n\tthe appellant’s attempt to throw the blame on the Registry that it
\n\tdid not examine the application when filed and since no objection
\n\twas raised at the initial stage, later-on it cannot be rejected, is
\n\tmisconceived and not worthy of consideration and deserves to be
\n\trejected and is accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
However
\n\ton perusal of the order it does appear that the appellant herein
\n\t(viz. Premadevi Avinashsingh) had preferred an application which
\n\tcame to be registered as CA No.OA 0300161. The same appellant
\n\tapplicant also preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
\n\tMX300033.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that during the proceedings when the aforesaid two
\n\tapplications came to the notice of the learned Tribunal, inquiries
\n\twere made with the Registry. The learned Tribunal has recorded that
\n\tthe Registry expressed that it was impracticable for the Registry to
\n\tascertain such aspects at the time of registering any application.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt called upon Mr.B.I.Mehta, learned advocate to supply the
\n\tcopies of both the applications filed by present applicant. Learned
\n\tadvocate for the opponent, Mr.B.I.Mehta has supplied the record of
\n\tthe Railway Administration containing copies of both the
\n\tapplication.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tperusal of the record, it prima facie appears that 2 applications
\n\twere preferred in respect of the accident which had occurred on
\n\t24.07.2000 wherein shuttle train No.140 UP Vapi-Virar was involved,
\n\thowever, on closer scrutiny of the record, it appears that one of
\n\tthe applications was made seeking condonation of delay whereas the
\n\tsecond application was the parent application claiming the
\n\tcompensation claim amount.\n<\/p>\n
Though,
\n\tfrom the available record it is difficult to finally ascertain as to
\n\twhether both the applications were parent, main and substantive
\n\tapplications pertaining to substantive prayer for claim of
\n\tcompensation, or not. It however prima facie appears that one of the
\n\ttwo applications was preferred with the prayer seeking limited
\n\trelief i.e. relief of condonation of delay.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe
\n\torder of the learned Tribunal it emerges that one of the
\n\tapplications was registered as original application and the second
\n\tapplication was registered as Misc. Civil Application. Ordinarily an
\n\tapplication claiming the compensation\/ claim amount could not
\n\thave been registered as a Misc. Civil Application. Differently put a
\n\tMisc. Civil
\n\tApplication would not be filed for presenting the claim for
\n\tcompensation.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the fact that one of the two applications was registered\/
\n\tpresented as Misc. Civil Application and other one as Original
\n\tApplication it appears that the impression gathered by the learned
\n\tTribunal and reflected in the impugned order is not justified.\n<\/p>\n
Besides
\n\tthis even if what is observed by the learned Tribunal is accepted to
\n\tbe factually accurate, then also the ground on which both the
\n\tapplications are dismissed, is not justified.
\n\tLearned Tribunal has rejected both the applications on the ground
\n\tthat the applicant made incorrect statement and declaration. If at
\n\tall such observation of the learned Tribunal is to be accepted, then
\n\talso only one of the two applications can be treated as infected by
\n\tthe vice of the incorrect statement and declaration. The declaration
\n\tmade by the appellant in the first application obviously would be
\n\tcorrect though at the time of second application (allegedly for the
\n\tsame cause of action) such declaration may turn out to be incorrect
\n\twhen made in the memo of second application inasmuch as at the time
\n\tof filing of the first application obviously
\n\tthe second application was not preferred or pending. Hence, the
\n\tdeclaration in the first applicant cannot be treated as incorrect
\n\tstatement since prior to the said first application any other claim
\n\tapplication was not filed.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tpresent case even if both the applications are substantive
\n\tapplication then also only one of the two applications, particularly
\n\tthe second application, would be hit by the vice of suppression or
\n\tincorrect declaration and the order would be justified in respect of
\n\tthe second application but not for the first application.\n<\/p>\n
Further
\n\tmore, in view of the fact that the applicants are legal
\n\trepresentatives of a deceased\/ victim of an accident, it would not
\n\tbe justified if the applicants are totally non-suited and are
\n\tcompletely deprived of the claim amount by dismissing both the
\n\tapplications.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Tribunal could have considered the option of returning one
\n\tof the the applications and pass the appropriate order on merits in
\n\trespect of the other application i.e. the first one. In light of the
\n\taforesaid discussion, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on
\n\tthe limited ground as discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
Instead
\n\tof making any final conclusion and direction in respect of both the
\n\tapplication, it appears that the interest of the contesting parties
\n\tand justice would be served, if matter is remanded to the learned
\n\tTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Tribunal would do well to conduct and undertake detailed
\n\texamination of the complete record of both the applications,
\n\tparticularly the issue whether both the applications contain
\n\tsubstantive claim i.e. claim for compensation or one of the
\n\tapplications is made only for the relief of condonation of delay and
\n\tif on proper examination the learned Tribunal finds that one of the
\n\tapplications is only for the prayer of condonation of delay then the
\n\tlearned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law
\n\tand thereafter the substantive claim application may be taken for
\n\tconsideration provided the learned Tribunal finds it proper to, and
\n\tit actually does, condone delay.\n<\/p>\n
If
\n\tthe learned Tribunal finds, after proper verification of the
\n\tapplications, that both the applications had been filed as
\n\tsubstantive application with substantive prayer for claim amount in
\n\trespect of the same accident and for the same person\/ victim, then
\n\tthe learned Tribunal may pass appropriate order keeping in mind the
\n\tdiscussion hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tan upshot of the discussion, the impugned order is, for the
\n\taforesaid reasons, set aside  and on the limited ground the two
\n\tapplications are remanded to the learned Tribunal with the
\n\tdirections as above. The learned Tribunal shall consider and decide
\n\tthe applications independently and on their own merits but after
\n\toffering opportunity of hearing to both the sides. It would be open
\n\tto both the sides to raise all contentions available in law
\n\tincluding the objection on ground of limitation and\/ or
\n\tmaintainability of the applications.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal
\nis accordingly partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tProceedings
\nare remitted to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench)
\nAhmedabad for appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
(K.M.THAKER,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
&mitesh&<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/342\/2009 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 342 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-110355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPremadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - 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\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-17T12:59:44+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T12:59:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1728,\"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\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T12:59:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - 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\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-17T12:59:44+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T12:59:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010"},"wordCount":1728,"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\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010","name":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T12:59:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premadevi-vs-union-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Premadevi vs Union on 4 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110355","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=110355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}