{"id":119349,"date":"2010-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-29T02:01:42","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T20:31:42","slug":"hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.RA\/462\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 462 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHRIM\nFINEWEST PVT LTD &amp; 2 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKISHORBHAI\nNATVARBHAI VALA &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nFB BRAHMBHATT for\nApplicant(s) : 1 - 3. \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR KARTIK\nPANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners are the original accused. They are challenging an order<br \/>\n\tdated 27.7.2010 passed by learned JMFC, Porbandar below application<br \/>\n\texh.423 given by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\n\tappreciate the controversy it would be necessary to take note of few<br \/>\n\tfacts.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tPetitioners<br \/>\n\tare accused in case of dishonor of cheque punishable under Section<br \/>\n\t138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint has been lodged by<br \/>\n\trespondent no.1 herein being Criminal Case No.8076\/2002 which as<br \/>\n\tnumbered itself suggests is pending before the learned Magistrate<br \/>\n\tsince nearly eight years now.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tPreviously<br \/>\n\toriginal complainant has approached this Court by filing Special<br \/>\n\tCriminal Application No. 1200\/2008 challenging order dated 3.6.2008<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Magistrate by which request of the accused for<br \/>\n\tissuance of summons to 17 witnesses was granted. Before the Court it<br \/>\n\twas contended that such application has been filed with ulterior<br \/>\n\tmotive. Irrelevant evidence is sought to be brought on record only<br \/>\n\tto delay the proceedings. On behalf of the accused, counsel appeared<br \/>\n\tbefore the High Court and submitted that some of the witnesses may<br \/>\n\tbe dropped and petitioner may be informed in advance about those<br \/>\n\twitnesses who would be examined. In view of the above, Court passed<br \/>\n\tthe following order :\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.\tIn<br \/>\nview of above fair statement being made and recorded in the order,<br \/>\npresent petition under Article 227 could not be pressed further for<br \/>\nthe purpose of examination of merits of the impugned order in respect<br \/>\nof examination of each witness before the trial Court.  Since the<br \/>\nparties have agreed to fully cooperate in the earliest possible<br \/>\nhearing and disposal of the main criminal case, and they have agreed<br \/>\nupon the outer limit of 31st December 2008 for the purpose<br \/>\nof concluding the evidence in defence, it is directed, by consent,<br \/>\nthat the respondents shall conclude their evidence in defence latest<br \/>\nby 31st December 2008, regardless of any witness called by<br \/>\nsummons or warrant attends the Court or not.  It is further clarified<br \/>\nthat the trial Court would be at liberty to conduct the proceedings<br \/>\nin accordance with law and may not permit any irrelevant,<br \/>\nimpermissible or unnecessary material to be introduced in evidence.<br \/>\nAny objection of the petitioner in that regard may have to be<br \/>\nimmediately heard and decided so as to facilitate conclusion of<br \/>\nevidence of the respondents within the aforesaid time limit.   It was<br \/>\nagreed among the parties that the trial Court shall conduct further<br \/>\nproceedings of the criminal case, as far as practicable on day-to-day<br \/>\nbasis in compliance with the provisions of Section 309 of the<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code and if any party appears to be unnecessarily<br \/>\nprolonging the proceedings or causing adjournment, appropriate order<br \/>\nas to cost may be made by the trial Court.  It was agreed that in<br \/>\ncase of witness, Mr.Kishorbhai N. Vala, who is recalled for<br \/>\nexamination as a witness, re-examination and cross-examination shall<br \/>\nbe restricted to the purpose for which he is recalled.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tSubject<br \/>\n\tto abiding by the statements and observations recorded hereinabove,<br \/>\n\tthe petition is disposed, Notice is discharged and interim relief is<br \/>\n\tvacated with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis not in dispute that subsequent to said order dated 21.10.2008,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners completed recording of evidence on their behalf in<br \/>\n\tthe year 2008 itself. It is also not in dispute that at one stage,<br \/>\n\tthe case was kept for pronouncement of judgement. However, for some<br \/>\n\treason certain issues cropped up again and the case was reopened.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioners at that stage moved application exh. 360 before the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate and prayed for production of certain documents by<br \/>\n\tthe complainant. On this application, learned Judge passed his order<br \/>\n\ton 26.2.2010 and directed the complainant to produce letter dated<br \/>\n\t11.1.2002 within 15 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\tThereupon<br \/>\n\tcomplainant approached this Court again by filing Special Criminal<br \/>\n\tApplication No.530\/2010 challenging order passed by the Magistrate<br \/>\n\tbelow application exh. 360. He relied on the previous order of the<br \/>\n\tHigh  Court dated 21.10.2008 whereby time limit was fixed by the<br \/>\n\tHigh Court for completion of the proceedings. High Court therefore,<br \/>\n\twhile disposing of  Special Criminal Application No.530\/2010  by<br \/>\n\torder dated 30.3.2010 recorded as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p> Inspite<br \/>\nof the above fact, under one or the other pretext the respondents<br \/>\nhave preferred application for production of the documents which is<br \/>\nalready taken or in existence of the record of the case.  It is,<br \/>\ntherefore, submitted that the trial court be directed to<br \/>\nexpeditiously complete the proceedings of the pending criminal case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that<br \/>\neither the order dated 26th February, 2010 below Exh. 360<br \/>\nin Criminal Case No. 8076 of 2002 will be complied with or<br \/>\nalternatively necessary steps will be taken to admit the document in<br \/>\nquestion which is already produced and exhibited on the record of the<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, no challenge to the impugned order survives and<br \/>\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court<br \/>\nis directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in<br \/>\nSpecial Criminal Application No. 1200 of 2008 dated 21.10.2008 and<br \/>\nshall avoid unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings or adjourning of<br \/>\nthe case without there being any just and right cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>With<br \/>\nthe aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis not in dispute that pursuant to order dated 30.3.2010, original<br \/>\n\tcomplainant had admitted the execution of the document. It is the<br \/>\n\tcase of the petitioners that this is not sufficient compliance to<br \/>\n\tthe assurance given to the Court on 31.3.2010 which is recorded in<br \/>\n\tthe order. It is the case of the petitioners that not only the<br \/>\n\tdocuments but the contents thereof  also must be admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tPetitioners<br \/>\n\thad also filed application exh. 417 and stated that the complainant<br \/>\n\tbe directed to file specific affidavit admitting the contents of the<br \/>\n\tdocument as conveyed to the High Court. This application was<br \/>\n\trejected by the learned Magistrate on 18.6.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners moved fresh application exh.423 and requested for<br \/>\n\trecalling of the complainant and one more witness under Section 311<br \/>\n\tof the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application came to be<br \/>\n\tturned down by the learned Magistrate by impugned order dated<br \/>\n\t27.7.2010 observing inter-alia that purpose of recalling of the<br \/>\n\twitness is not clarified. The petitioners are somehow trying to<br \/>\n\tdelay the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that learned<br \/>\n\tMagistrate committed grave error in not allowing the application of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners. He contended that witnesses can be recalled at any<br \/>\n\tstage of the proceedings. Such recalling was essential in the<br \/>\n\tpresent case since complainant did not fulfill his promise made to<br \/>\n\tthe High Court. It was therefore, necessary to prove the contents of<br \/>\n\tthe documents that he may be recalled.  He relied on the following<br \/>\n\tdecisions of the Apex Court to contend that under Section 311of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Criminal Procedure, it is open for the Court to recall any<br \/>\n\twitness at any stage of the proceedings :\n<\/p>\n<p>1)<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1219209\/\">Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell,<\/a> through its officer in charge,<br \/>\n\tDelhi reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases(Cri.)1062.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1538745\/\">P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay Shaw<\/a> reported in (2003) 11<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court Cases 486.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)<br \/>\n\tHimanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others<br \/>\n\treported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 602.\n<\/p>\n<p>4)<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/351624\/\">Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and<\/a> another reported<br \/>\n\tin 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 595.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe present case, however, I find that facts of the case would not<br \/>\n\tpermit me to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. As<br \/>\n\talready noted, the case is lingering since 2002. Petitioners were<br \/>\n\tgiven sufficient opportunity to defend themselves in past.<br \/>\n\tComplainant approached this Court in the year 2008 and complained of<br \/>\n\taccused protracting the trial. They had previously requested for<br \/>\n\tsummoning 17 witnesses. Before High Court they agreed to drop those<br \/>\n\twitnesses who were not necessary upon which High  Court in the year<br \/>\n\t2008 provided for a time limit to complete the proceedings.<br \/>\n\tThereafter also proceedings went on unabated. The petitioners at a<br \/>\n\tlater stage sought to prove letter dated 11.1.2002. At that stage,<br \/>\n\tonce again complainant approached High  Court . Before the High<br \/>\n\tCourt to speed up the proceedings, his counsel agreed that he would<br \/>\n\teither admit the document or produce the original document. In<br \/>\n\tprecise term he stated that   either<br \/>\n\tthe order dated 26th<br \/>\n\tFebruary, 2010 below Exh. 360 in Criminal Case No. 8076 of 2002 will<br \/>\n\tbe complied with or alternatively necessary steps will be taken to<br \/>\n\tadmit the document in question which is already produced and<br \/>\n\texhibited on the record of the case .\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioners that this assertion was not fulfilled<br \/>\n\twhich necessitated their filing of fresh application first by<br \/>\n\taffidavit in clear terms. When such request was turned down by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate, they had filed application exh. 423 for<br \/>\n\trecalling of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tam of the opinion that complainant has in no way breached the<br \/>\n\tassurance given to the High Court. Before the High  Court he only<br \/>\n\tagreed to either produce said document or admit said document (xerox<br \/>\n\tcopy of which is already produced before the trial Court). He has<br \/>\n\talready admitted the document on affidavit. Such document is also<br \/>\n\texhibited. He has thus fulfilled his promise. Case of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners is that he must admit the contents of the document. This<br \/>\n\tis not what  his advocate had conveyed to the High Court . I do not<br \/>\n\tfind the petitioner have made out any case for recalling of the<br \/>\n\twitnesses. They had at much belated stage thought of having document<br \/>\n\texhibited long after they had closed their<br \/>\n\tdefence. Such document is also exhibited. By virtue of this Court&#8217;s<br \/>\n\torder, affidavit of the complainant admitting such documents is<br \/>\n\tfiled.  I am therefore, in agreement with the view of the learned<br \/>\n\tMagistrate that petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings. No<br \/>\n\tcase for interference is made out.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition<br \/>\n\tis therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(raghu)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.RA\/462\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 462 of 2010 ========================================================= HRIM FINEWEST PVT LTD &amp; 2 &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus KISHORBHAI NATVARBHAI VALA &amp; 1 &#8211; [&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-119349","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>Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - 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\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T20:31:42+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\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T20:31:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1605,\"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\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T20:31:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 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":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - 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\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T20:31:42+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\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T20:31:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010"},"wordCount":1605,"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\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010","name":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T20:31:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hrim-vs-kishorbhai-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hrim vs Kishorbhai on 17 September, 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\/119349","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=119349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}