{"id":115399,"date":"1996-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-05T11:51:59","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T06:21:59","slug":"reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (4) 579, \t  JT 1996 (5)\t114<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V K.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkataswami K. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRELIANCE PETROLEUM LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIAAND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 579\t  JT 1996 (5)\t114\n 1996 SCALE  (4)340\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nK.Venkataswami,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard learned counsel. Perused the written submissions.<br \/>\n     These  appeals   &#8211;\t one   by  the\t State\tof   Gujarat<br \/>\n[S.L.P.(C)No.27350\/95]\tand   the  other   by  the  Reliance<br \/>\nPetroleum Limited  [S.L.P.(C) NO.27230\/95]  arise out of the<br \/>\njudgment and  order of\tthe Gujarat  High  Court  dated\t 5th<br \/>\nSeptember, 1995 in Special Civil Application No. 13525\/94.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By the judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) the\t notification issued  under section 4(1) of the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Act thereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;) dated<br \/>\n15.2.1993, (b) the declaration issued under section 6 of the<br \/>\nAct dated  18.5.1994 and  (c) the  award passed\t on 12.12.94<br \/>\ninsofar as they related to the lands of the writ petitioners<br \/>\nand other  objectors (totalling\t 89 in\tnumber) belonging to<br \/>\nvillages Padana and Meghpur.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At the  instance  of  the\tappellant  in  Civil  Appeal<br \/>\narising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.27230\/95 (hereinafter called the<br \/>\n&#8220;appellant company&#8221;)  machinery under  Land Acquisition\t Act<br \/>\nwas put\t into operation\t under\tPart  VII  of  the  Act\t for<br \/>\nacquiring approximately\t an extent  of 2,500  acres of lands<br \/>\nsituated in  the villages  of Moti  Chavdi, Padana, Meghpur,<br \/>\nLalpur, Sikka  and Gagva.  Before the  High Court  the lands<br \/>\nmeasuring  about  877  acres  belonging\t to  89\t individuals<br \/>\nsituated in  Padana and\t Meghpur was  the subject matter. It<br \/>\nappears in  between (namely  when  the\tmatter\twas  pending<br \/>\nbefore the High Court and the matter was heard and concluded<br \/>\nin this\t Court) the appellant Company was able to settle the<br \/>\nmatter with  70 individuals,  leaving 19 individuals holding<br \/>\nan extent  of 241.34  acres for settling the issue. In other<br \/>\nwords we are concerned now with the lands situated in Padana<br \/>\nand Meghpur  villages belonging\t to 19 individuals measuring<br \/>\n241.34 acres only.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before the\t High Court  the  writ\tpetitioners  (namely<br \/>\nRespondents 1  to 3  in Civil  Appeal arising  out of S.L.P.<br \/>\n(C)No.27230\/95) raised\tonly three  contentions.  They\twere<br \/>\nthat there was non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of<br \/>\nthe Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules. 1969, that there was<br \/>\nnon-compliance of provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules and<br \/>\nthat there  was no  hearing as\trequired  was  afforded\t and<br \/>\nthereby there  was violation of the provisions of Section 5A<br \/>\nof the Act. The learned Judges impressed by the arguments of<br \/>\nthe writ  petitioners accepted\tthe above  three contentions<br \/>\nand consequently  quashed  the\tnotification  under  section<br \/>\n4(1). declaration  under section  6 and\t awards passed under<br \/>\nthe Land Acquisition Act as mentioned above at the outset.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aggrieved by  the judgment\t of  the  High\tCourt  these<br \/>\nappeals by special leave have been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Ashok\tDesai, learned\tSenior Counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe appellant  Company submitted  that the High Court on the<br \/>\nfacts of  the case  ought not  to have\tentertained the writ<br \/>\npetition under\tArticle 226  of the  Constitution  of  India<br \/>\nespecially when\t the object  of the  petitioners before\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court  was for  getting an\t unrealistic price for their<br \/>\nlands.\tHe   also  submitted   that  their  conduct  in\t not<br \/>\nchallenging the\t legality and validity of notification under<br \/>\nsection\t 4(1)\tdeclaration  under  section  6\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\nimmediately after  their publications and they having waited<br \/>\ntill the award was passed and finding that the award was not<br \/>\nto their  satisfaction and filing reference under section 18<br \/>\nof the\tAct, disentitles  them from  moving the\t High  Court<br \/>\nunder Article  226 of  the Constitution. Such conduct on the<br \/>\npart of the writ petitioners should have been taken due note<br \/>\nof by  the High\t Court for  rejecting the  relief.  He\talso<br \/>\nbrought to  our notice\tone factual  position that out of 89<br \/>\npersons who  challenged the  land  acquisition\tproceedings,<br \/>\nonly 19\t are in\t the field  and the  rest have\taccepted the<br \/>\ncompensation (of  course higher\t amount than the one awarded<br \/>\nby the\tLand Acquisition  Officer) and\tthat shows  that the<br \/>\nsole  object  of  the  petitioners  before  the\t High  Court<br \/>\n(respondents nos.  1 to 3 herein) was to get the unrealistic<br \/>\nprice. In  support of  this he also invited our attention to<br \/>\nparagraph 4  of the  written submissions  filed on behalf of<br \/>\nthe respondents\t Nos. 1\t to 3.\tIn the\twritten\t submissions<br \/>\nfiled  on   behalf  of\t the  appellant\t  Company,   it\t  is<br \/>\ncategorically stated that the Company is prepared to pay the<br \/>\nsame compensation  as paid  to other  persons at the rate of<br \/>\nRs. 43750\/-  for non  irrigated\t lands\tand  Rs.87500\/-\t for<br \/>\nirrigated lands.  It is\t also pointed out that these amounts<br \/>\nare higher  than the one demanded by the writ petitioners in<br \/>\ntheir letter dated 25.10.1994. In the concluding part of the<br \/>\nwritten\t submissions  an  alternative  offer  also  is\tmade<br \/>\nstating that  if necessary  the Company\t is prepared to give<br \/>\nalternative lands  out of  the\tlands  acquired\t to  the  19<br \/>\nindividuals who\t are  now  disputing  the  land\t acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings, No\t doubt the  learned counsel  also  contended<br \/>\nthat  the  authorities\tconcerned  have\t complied  with\t the<br \/>\nformalities required  under  Rules  3  and  4  of  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition  (Companies)  Rules\t and  also  the\t formalities<br \/>\nrequired under\tsection 5A  of the Act. He also cited number<br \/>\nof judgments of this Court to support his contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Shanti\t Bhushan, learned  Senior Counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor the\t land owners  (respondents Nos.\t 1 to  3) c  the  19<br \/>\nindividuals while replying submitted that the Company having<br \/>\nnot responded to the offer made by the land owners by letter<br \/>\ndated 25.10.1994  cannot place\tany reliance  at this stage.<br \/>\nThe land  owners\/respondents on the basis of the judgment of<br \/>\nthe High  Court are  entitled to  the present  market  value<br \/>\nwhich is  about Rs.7  lakhs per\t acre and  if this amount is<br \/>\npaid now they will accept the same and give up their further<br \/>\nclaims. According  to the learned counsel as per decision of<br \/>\nthis Court,  compliance of  requirement of  Rules 3 and 4 of<br \/>\nthe Land  Acquisition (Companies)  Rules as well as personal<br \/>\nhearing under section 5A are mandatory and non-compliance of<br \/>\nthe same  as factually\tfound by  the High  Court cannot  be<br \/>\ncured  and  therefore,\tthe  High  Court  was  justified  in<br \/>\nentertaining the  case under  Article 226  and quashing\t the<br \/>\nproceedings. He\t also cited number of authorities in support<br \/>\nof his submission.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have carefully gone through the relevant records and<br \/>\nconsidered the\tsubmissions both oral and written and we are<br \/>\nof the\tview that on the facts which cannot be disputed, the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  ought  not\t have  exercised  its  discretionary<br \/>\njurisdiction and  quashed the  notification, declaration and<br \/>\naward under the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The facts\twhich cannot  be disputed are the following.<br \/>\nThe notification  under section\t 4 dated 15.2.1993, which is<br \/>\nthe first  step\t to  initiate  proceedings  under  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition Act,  was issued on 11.3.1993. After the inquiry<br \/>\nunder section  SA, (we\tproceed on the assumption that there<br \/>\nwas no\tstrict compliance  of the  requirements) declaration<br \/>\nunder section  6  was  published  on  18.5.1994.  Thereafter<br \/>\nindividual notices under section 9 were issued on 12.8.1994.<br \/>\nIn response  to notices under section 9 claims were filed by<br \/>\nthe land  owners  including  respondents  Nos.\t1  to  3  on<br \/>\n5.9.1994. Apart from that on 7.9.1994 a letter was addressed<br \/>\nto  the\t Land  Acquisition  Officer  on\t behalf\t of  the  89<br \/>\nindividuals which included respondents 1 to 3 informing that<br \/>\nthe claims  were filed\ton behalf of the 89. When the matter<br \/>\nwas pending  before the\t Land Acquisition Officer and before<br \/>\nan award  was passed  respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for themselves<br \/>\nand on behalf of 89 persons addressed a letter on 25.10.1994<br \/>\nstating that  they have\t no objection  to the acquisition of<br \/>\nland but  they wanted only compensation as demanded therein.<br \/>\nIn fact they have given figures which ranged between 37500\/-<br \/>\nto 87000-  per acre.  However, the appellant company did not<br \/>\ntake advantage\tof that\t offer by  responding to  the  same.<br \/>\nSubsequently, on 12.12.1994 the Land Acquisition officer has<br \/>\npassed the  award and on the same date notices under section<br \/>\n12(2) were  also issued\t to the\t individuals. It  is claimed<br \/>\nmajor portion  of  the\tland  was  taken  possession  of  on<br \/>\n19.12.1994. It\tis, therefore,\tonly on\t 20.12.1994  Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No. 13525\/94 was filed by respondents Nos.<br \/>\n1 to  3\t on  behalf  of\t 89  persons  challenging  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  above facts  which cannot be disputed as they<br \/>\nwere taken  from records, it would be clear that respondents<br \/>\nNos. 1\tto 3  (writ petitioners\t before the High Court) took<br \/>\ntheir chance  in the  Award Proceedings and finding that the<br \/>\ncompensation as claimed by them was not given have moved the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  If really\ttheir intention was to challenge the<br \/>\nacquisition as\tsuch they  could have  done  immediately  at<br \/>\nleast after  the publication  of declaration under section 6<br \/>\nor immediately\tafter they  received notices under section 9<br \/>\nof the Land Acquisition Act. This shows that the only object<br \/>\nof the writ petitioners was to get the maximum price for the<br \/>\nland  acquired.\t  No  doubt   they  are\t  entitled  to\t the<br \/>\ncompensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. For<br \/>\nthat there  is a separate procedure under the Act itself. As<br \/>\na matter  of fact  out of  19 individuals who are before us,<br \/>\nrepresented by\trespondents Nos. 1 to 3, it is common ground<br \/>\n17 have already sought reference under section 18 of the Act<br \/>\nclaiming more  compensation. Further,  it is  stated in\t the<br \/>\nwritten submission  filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to<br \/>\n3 as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It may be pointed out that some of<br \/>\n     the land  owners, as  was stated by<br \/>\n     the counsel  for the  company, have<br \/>\n     entered into  settlement  with  the<br \/>\n     company  and   have  accepted   the<br \/>\n     compensation. Evidently  they  will<br \/>\n     not be  entitled to  the benefit of<br \/>\n     the High  Court judgment.\tHowever,<br \/>\n     it has  been stated in a note given<br \/>\n     to the Court by the company that 19<br \/>\n     persons owning  241.34 acres of the<br \/>\n     land sought to be acquired have not<br \/>\n     entered into  any\tsettlement  with<br \/>\n     the company.  The result  would  be<br \/>\n     that the  Government would\t have no<br \/>\n     authority\tto  take  possession  of<br \/>\n     these    lands\twithout\t   fresh<br \/>\n     acquisition  proceedings.\t It  was<br \/>\n     stated   on    behalf   of\t   these<br \/>\n     respondents that the present market<br \/>\n     value of the land was about 7 lakhs<br \/>\n     per   acre\t  and\ttherefore,   the<br \/>\n     compensation for  the  said  241.34<br \/>\n     acres would  come\tto  about  Rs.17<br \/>\n     crores. It\t was further  stated  on<br \/>\n     behalf of\tthe respondents\t that if<br \/>\n     the company  is  willing  to  agree<br \/>\n     that   these   persons   would   be<br \/>\n     entitled  to  receive  compensation<br \/>\n     according\tto   the  market   value<br \/>\n     prevalent on  the date  of\t Supreme<br \/>\n     Court&#8217;s judgment  in this\tSLP, the<br \/>\n     respondents  would\t be  willing  to<br \/>\n     accept the same.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Taking note  of all  these facts  we have\tcome to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that   the\tHigh  Court  was  not  justified  in<br \/>\nentertaining the  writ petition\t and also  in exercising the<br \/>\ndiscretionary jurisdiction  to quash  the 4(1) notifications<br \/>\nsection\t 6   declaration  and  award  made  under  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the view we take on the facts of the case, we do not<br \/>\nthink it  necessary to\tdiscuss the  question of  law and to<br \/>\nquote the cases cited by counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Notwithstanding the above, we feel that ends of justice<br \/>\nwould be  met if  we direct the appellant company to pay the<br \/>\nenhanced compensation  at the  rate\/rates paid to others who<br \/>\nhave accepted  the same\t and withdrew  from prosecuting\t the<br \/>\ncase in\t this Court, with interest @ 12% from 25.10.1994. If<br \/>\nan affidavit  is filed on behalf of the 19 persons accepting<br \/>\nthe above compensation in full quit within 8 weeks from this<br \/>\ndate, the  same should be paid by the Company within 4 weeks<br \/>\nfrom the  date of filing of such affidavit. If the affidavit<br \/>\naccepting the above compensation is not filed as above, then<br \/>\nit will\t be taken  that the 19 individuals are not accepting<br \/>\nthe compensation  suggested, but  desire to agitate the same<br \/>\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  circumstances, subject  to the  direction given<br \/>\nabove, the  appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt is  set aside.  However, there  will be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 579, JT 1996 (5) 114 Author: V K. Bench: Venkataswami K. (J) PETITIONER: RELIANCE PETROLEUM LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: ZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIAAND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/1996 BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T06:21:59+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T06:21:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1930,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\",\"name\":\"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T06:21:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T06:21:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T06:21:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996"},"wordCount":1930,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996","name":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T06:21:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-petroleum-limited-vs-zaver-chand-popatlal-sumariaand-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reliance Petroleum Limited vs Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumariaand &#8230; on 9 May, 1996"}]},{"@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\/115399","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=115399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}