{"id":12146,"date":"2011-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-27T10:35:59","modified_gmt":"2016-06-27T05:05:59","slug":"i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
I vs District on 18 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/215\/2011\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 215 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\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\nI\nD B I BANK LTD - THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDISTRICT\nMAGISTRATE & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPM DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,                                         MR ASIT B\nJOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s)\n: 1, \nMR SK PATEL 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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)<\/p>\n
1.\tThis
\npetition has been preferred by IDBI Bank Limited, a company
\nincorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, through
\nits authorized signatory with the following prayers :-\n<\/p>\n
“(A)
\nYour Lordships be pleased to issue a writ or any other appropriate
\nwrit, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside
\norder\/communication dtd.09\/06\/2009 of the respondent authority and
\nfurther be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pass an
\norder for providing assistance to maintain law and order while taking
\nover the possession of the secured assets of the principal borrower
\nfor implementation of sec 14(1) and the said secured asset is to be
\nforwarded to the petitioner in accordance with law in the interest of
\njustice and equity forthwith;\n<\/p>\n
(B)
\nYour Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent authority to
\nforthwith re-consider the application of the petitioner bank
\nsubmitted u\/s.14 of the Securitization considering the ratio laid
\ndown in various decisions of this Hon’ble Court as well as
\nconsidering the provisions of section 14 of the Act and pass the
\nappropriate order within such time as may be deemed fit by this
\nHon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.”\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nfactual background under which this petition has been preferred is
\nthat respondent no.2 availed of a housing loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the
\npetitioner Bank and executed necessary documents in favour of the
\npetitioner Bank. It is not in dispute that the loan was sanctioned in
\nfavour of respondent no.2, who is the principal borrower. At the time
\nof availing the loan amount respondent no.2, as the principal
\nborrower, mortgaged his immovable residential property towards the
\nsecurity with the petitioner Bank by executing necessary documents.
\nThe description of the mortgaged immovable residential property is as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
“A
\nresidential property situated on Revenue Survey No.288\/p, Mouje : Gam
\nChhapra, District – Sub District: Navsari, Plot area 116.26
\nsq.meters (660 sq.ft.), constructed area 540 sq.ft., House No.36\/H,
\nPanchvati Society, Chhapra Road, Chhapra, Navsari”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\nrespondent no.2 is a borrower under Section 2(f) of the
\nSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
\nof Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Securitisation Act’)
\nand the petitioner Bank is a secured creditor under Section 2(zd) of
\nthe Securitisation Act. It is also not in dispute that respondent
\nno.2 failed in making payment of installments and as on 10th
\nDecember 2006 the total outstanding dues payable by him to the Bank
\nwas Rs.1,55,595=00.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npetitioner Bank required police assistance for taking over the
\nphysical possession of the property in question. The Bank, therefore,
\napplied to the District Magistrate, Navsari, by filing application
\ndated 26th February 2009. The grievance made by the Bank
\nis to the effect that an application which was preferred with the
\nDistrict Magistrate, Navsari under Section 14 of the Securitisation
\nAct, praying that necessary protection be afforded to the Bank for
\ntaking over possession of the property in question, which has been
\nmortgaged, has been wrongly rejected. The application preferred by
\nthe Bank is at Annexure-‘F’. Collector, Navsari i.e. respondent no.1
\ninformed the Bank that the request which has been made cannot be
\nacceded under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act for the reason
\nthat the defaulter i.e. principal borrower – respondent no.2
\nhas made construction of 540 sq.feet in a plot area of 660 sq.feet in
\nthe land bearing Revenue Survey No.288\/p situated at Mouje Chhapra,
\nwhich is not in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 further informed
\nthe Bank that it would not be proper to get the possession of the
\nproperty having unauthorized construction to submit to the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nprincipal contention on behalf of the petitioner Bank is that
\nrespondent no.1 as a District Magistrate has no power under Section
\n14 of the Securitisation Act to adjudicate any issue on merits. It is
\nalso submitted that the District Magistrate cannot refuse to assist
\nthe Bank in taking over possession on any other grounds. Per contra,
\nit has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent
\nno.2 that he is ready and willing to make the payment to the Bank
\nwhatever is due and outstanding as on today if he is given an
\nopportunity by the Bank for the same.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tSo
\nfar as the first principal contention of the petitioner is concerned,
\nthe same merits consideration because the Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate and the District Magistrate, under Section 14 of the
\nSecuritisation Act are not empowered to decide the question of
\nlegality and propriety of any of the actions taken by the secured
\ncreditor under Section 13(4), which can be assailed under Section 17
\nof the Securitisation Act by the aggrieved person. Under sub-section
\n(3) of Section 14, the act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
\nDistrict Magistrate done in pursuance of the said section cannot be
\ncalled in question in any court or before any authority. From the
\naforesaid provisions of law, it is evident that Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate or District Magistrate is bound to assist the secured
\ncreditor in taking possession of the secured assets.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nAuthority who is called upon to act under Section 14 of the
\nSecuritisation Act can only assist, nay, is bound to assist the
\nsecured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset. As the
\nChief Metropolitan Magistrate and District Magistrate under Section
\n14 is not empowered to decide the question of legality and propriety
\nof any of the actions taken by the secured creditor under Section
\n13(4), which may be assailed under Section 17 of the Act by the
\naggrieved person, under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the
\nSecuritisation Act, the act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
\nDistrict Magistrate done in pursuance of said Section cannot be
\ncalled in question in any court or before any authority. It is
\nevident from the provisions of law that the District Magistrate while
\nbound to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the
\nsecured assets and to take the possession of the documents relating
\nthereto and forward such assets and documents to the secured
\ncreditor, he is not empowered to decide the question of genuinity or
\npropriety of such documents, including the document signed or agreed
\nbetween the borrower and the secured creditor.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tDivision
\nBench of this High Court has, in Special Civil Application
\nNo.15084\/2010, in the matter between IDBI Bank Limited v\/s. Hytaisun
\nMagnetics Limited and others (unreported decision dated 9th
\nFebruary 2011) settled the entire position of law so far as the
\nsubject matter of the present petition is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nparagraph 20 of the unreported judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench
\nheld as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“(i)\tUnder
\nChapter III of the Securitization Act, a secured creditor has right
\nto enforce security interest without the intervention of the Court or
\nTribunal in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. [Section
\n13(1)]<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe
\nborrower, who is under liability to the secured creditor under a
\nsecured agreement, is entitled to take a notice under Section 13(2)
\nof the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The
\nsecured creditor who intends to enforce the secured asset is bound to
\ngive details of amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets
\nintended to be enforced.  [Section 13(3)]<\/p>\n
(iv)\tUnder
\nSection 13(3A), the borrower has right to make representation or
\nraise objection.  If any objection is there with regard to the
\nsecured asset, that can be raised only at the stage of Section
\n13(3A).  Under the said provision, only the secured creditor will
\ndetermine the objection and not any Court or Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tNo
\ncause of action takes place even after the decision taken by the
\nsecured creditor under Section 13(3A) till the secured creditor takes
\nrecourse of one or more measures including the measure to take
\npossession of the secured asset of the borrower under Section 13(4)
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tThe
\nsecured creditor is competent to take possession of all the secured
\nassets of its own following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of
\nthe Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)Only
\nwhen the secured creditor finds difficulty to take possession of the
\nsecured asset, it may take assistance of the Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)The
\nmeasures taken under Section 14 amounts to measures taken under
\nSection 13(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(ix)\tAs
\nthe measures taken under Section 14 amount to measures taken under
\nSection 13(4) of the Act, under Section 14(3) such measures cannot be
\ncalled in question before any Court or Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(x)\tIf
\nsuch measures taken under Section 14 which amount to measures taken
\nunder Section 13(4) is not in accordance with the Securitization Act
\nor the Rules framed thereunder, including the objection, if any,
\nraised that the asset is not a secured asset to be taken under
\nSection 13(4), the aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17
\nbefore the Debts Recovery Tribunal to show that the measures taken
\nare against the Act [Section 13(4)] or the Rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(xi)\tAll
\nsuch determination is to be made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
\nincluding the question whether the asset is a secured asset or not
\nand the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate has
\nnot been empowered to adjudicate such dispute, but is directed only
\nto assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured
\nasset.  If they are not empowered to adjudicate the dispute, they
\ncannot also call for  the secured creditor to produce any document to
\ndecide whether the asset is secured asset or not, which will be
\nfutile exercise in absence of power to adjudicate such issue.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tUnder
\nClauses (a) and (b) of Section 14(1), the Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate or the District Magistrate and on request, are bound to
\ntake possession of the secured assets as also the
\ndocuments relating thereto.  If the documents are to be obtained by
\nthem, the question of asking the secured creditor to produce the
\ndocument in all cases does not arise.  Therefore, they do not have
\njurisdiction even to call for the documents.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nview of the settled position of law, under Section 14(2) of the
\nSecuritisation Act, for the purpose of securing compliance with the
\nprovisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
\nthe District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and
\nuse, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tWe
\nare of the view that the District Magistrate has failed to discharge
\nhis statutory duties as he is obliged under Section 14(2) of the
\nSecuritisation Act and was not right in rejecting the application
\npreferred by the petitioner Bank under Section 14 of the
\nSecuritisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tFor
\nthe reasons stated above, we quash and set-aside the communication
\ndated 22nd
\nOctober 2010 (page 42
\ndated 9th
\nJune 2009) and we direct respondent no.1 to fully comply with the
\nprovisions of Section 14(2) of the Securitisation Act and to provide
\nthe necessary assistance and protection to the petitioner Bank for
\ntaking over possession of the secured assets of
\nthe principal borrower.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAt
\nthis stage, we deem it fit to clarify that the order which we have
\npassed shall not come in the way of respondent no.2 if he is ready
\nand willing to make the payment to the Bank as per his liability.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tUnder
\nSection 13(8) of the Securitisation Act, if the dues of the secured
\ncreditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by
\nhim are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date
\nfixed for sale or transfer, the secured assets shall not be sold or
\ntransferred by the secured creditor and no further steps shall be
\ntaken by him for transfer or sale of the secured assets. If
\nrespondent no.2 wants to avail of the benefit of Section 13(8), it
\nshall be open for him to make the necessary payment to the Bank as
\nper Section 13(8) of the
\nSecuritisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWe
\nalso like to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion so far as
\nthe measures taken by the petitioner Bank under Section 13(4) of the
\nSecuritisation Act are concerned. If respondent no.2 is aggrieved in
\nany manner for non-compliance of the Act or rules thereunder, it will
\nbe open for him to proceed under Section 17 of the Securitisation
\nAct, which provides for an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tWith
\nthese observations, the petition stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\tDirect
\nservice is permitted.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
\nCJ.)<\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\/moin<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court I vs District on 18 February, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/215\/2011 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 215 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 […]<\/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-12146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nI vs District on 18 February, 2011 - 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\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"I vs District on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-27T05:05:59+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"I vs District on 18 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T05:05:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2060,\"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\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\",\"name\":\"I vs District on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T05:05:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"I vs District on 18 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011 - 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\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-27T05:05:59+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T05:05:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011"},"wordCount":2060,"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\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011","name":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T05:05:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-vs-district-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"I vs District on 18 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/12146","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=12146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}