{"id":123601,"date":"2010-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-05T01:40:37","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T20:10:37","slug":"sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\nSCA\/11044\/2010\t 7\/ 9\tORDER \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. 11044 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSUB\nPOST MASTER &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nANSUYABEN\nGOVINDLAL DOSHI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSAURABH G AMIN for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. Saurabh G. Amin appearing on behalf of<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners have challenged order passed by Consumer Disputes<br \/>\nRedressal State Commission in Appeal No.1230 of 2008 dated 14th<br \/>\nDecember 2009, wherein, appeal which was preferred by petitioner<br \/>\nagainst challenging the order passed by District Forum, Navsari in<br \/>\nComplaint No.11 of 2005 dated 3rd<br \/>\nFebruary 2005 has been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAgainst<br \/>\nthe order passed by State Commission, petitioner is having<br \/>\nalternative effective statutory remedy under Section 21 of the<br \/>\nConsumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 21 is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> Sec.21<br \/>\nJurisdiction of the National Commission<br \/>\n  Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National<br \/>\nCommission shall have<br \/>\njurisdiction &#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tto<br \/>\nentertain &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tcomplaints<br \/>\nwhere the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any,<br \/>\nclaimed exceeds [rupees one crore]; and <\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tappeals<br \/>\nagainst the orders of any State Commission; and<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tto<br \/>\ncall for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer<br \/>\ndispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State<br \/>\nCommission where it appears to the National Commission that such<br \/>\nState Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by<br \/>\nlaw, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted<br \/>\nin the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material<br \/>\nirregularity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\ncase of R. Jaivel V. State of Tamil Nadu reported<br \/>\nin AIR 2006 Madras 215,<br \/>\nit has been held that when National Consumer Forum can have the<br \/>\njurisdiction to call for the records from the State Commission and to<br \/>\nset aside the order containing any per verse finding, naturally<br \/>\nalternative remedy is available to approach the National Consumer<br \/>\nForum and when that remedy is not exhausted, approaching High Court<br \/>\nunder Article 227 cannot be considered as maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nDivision Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench has taken a<br \/>\nview in case of Rajendra Singh Sisodiya v. madhya<br \/>\nPradesh Housing Board, Indore reported<br \/>\nin AIR 2009 Madhya Pradesh 162.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering provisions of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection<br \/>\nAct with Section 2(1)(e), revision before National Commission is<br \/>\nmaintainable against the order passed in appeal by State Commission.<br \/>\nThe relevant discussion is made in Para 8 to 10 which are quoted as<br \/>\nunder :\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.\t\tMoreover,<br \/>\na reading of Section 2(1) of the Act quoted above would show that the<br \/>\nexpressions mentioned in Sec.2(1) of the Act are to mean as indicated<br \/>\nin the various clauses mentioned therein  Unless the context<br \/>\notherwise required . Hence, while reading the different expressions<br \/>\ndefined in Sec.2(1) of the Act, the context in which the defined<br \/>\nexpression is used, has to be borne in mind. Hence the expression<br \/>\n consumer dispute , as defined in Sec.2(1)(e) of the Act, will<br \/>\nhave to be understood keeping in mind the context of Sec.21(b) of the<br \/>\nAct. If we now read under Sec.21(b) of the Act quoted above, it is<br \/>\nclear that the National Commission has the power to call for the<br \/>\nrecords and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is<br \/>\npending before or has been decided by any State Commission, if it<br \/>\nfinds that the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction so<br \/>\nvested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or<br \/>\nwith material irregularity. As defined in Sec.2(1)(e) of the Act, a<br \/>\n consumer dispute  means a complaint has been made, denies or<br \/>\ndisputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Where,<br \/>\ntherefore, the allegations made in the complaint lodged before the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum are denied by the other party, there is a consumer<br \/>\ndispute. When the Consumer Forum decides the dispute one way or the<br \/>\nother and the consumer or the other party files an appeal against the<br \/>\norder passed by the District Forum before the State Commission and<br \/>\nthe State Commission passed an order, the order that is passed by the<br \/>\nState Commission is an order passed in a consumer dispute. This is<br \/>\nbecause even at the appellate stage when the State Commission<br \/>\nconsiders the matter, the allegations made in the complaint by the<br \/>\nconsumer continue to be disputed or denied by the other party and<br \/>\nhence, the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tFurther,<br \/>\nby word  any  preceding the expression  consumer dispute  in<br \/>\nSec.21(b) would mean all or every dispute pending before the <a href=\"\/doc\/686582\/\">State<br \/>\nCommission. In Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> (1987) 2 SCC 707 : AIR 1987 SC 1668, the Supreme Court,<br \/>\nrelying on Black&#8217;s Dictionary, has held :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nword  any  has the following meaning:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSome;\n<\/p>\n<p>one of many; an indefinite number. One indiscriminately of whatever<br \/>\nkind or quantity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWord<br \/>\n any  has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate<br \/>\n all  or  every  as well as  some  or  one  and its<br \/>\nmeaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject<br \/>\nmatter of the statute.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis open synonymous with  either ,  every  or  all . Its<br \/>\ngenerality may be restricted by the context; (Black&#8217;s Law<br \/>\nDisctionary, 5th edn.)<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThe<br \/>\nexpression  any  used in any statute will, therefore, have to be<br \/>\ninterpreted by Courts by looking to the context in which it is used<br \/>\nand looking to the context of Sec.21(b) of the Act, we have no doubt<br \/>\nthat the word  any consumer dispute  would mean not only consumer<br \/>\ndispute arising out of an original complaint filed before the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum, but also a consumer dispute arising out of an appeal<br \/>\nfrom the orders of the District Forum before the State Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRecently,<br \/>\nApex Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/109859\/\">Om Prakash Saini v. DCM<br \/>\nLtd. &amp; Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4229,<br \/>\nit has been held that order passed by State Commission in consumer<br \/>\ndispute, specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Act.<br \/>\nAggrieved party withdrawing appeal and challenging order of State<br \/>\nCommission by filing writ petition . Order of single Judge<br \/>\nentertaining writ petition on premise that State Commission had no<br \/>\njurisdiction in view of Scheme sanctioned by Company Judge in said<br \/>\nmatter u\/S.391 of Companies Act   Not proper   There has to be<br \/>\nsome justification to make departure from rule that High Court will<br \/>\nnot entertain writ petition when alternative remedy is available. The<br \/>\nrelevant discussion is made by Apex Court in Para 12 and 13 which are<br \/>\nquoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.\t\tWe<br \/>\nhave considered the respective submissions. The 1986 Act was enacted<br \/>\nto provide for better protection of the interests of consumers by<br \/>\nmaking provisions for establishment of consumer councils and other<br \/>\nauthorities for settlement of consumer disputes and adjudication<br \/>\nthereof. The 1986 Act is a complete Code unto itself. It defines the<br \/>\nvarious terms like `consumer&#8217;, `consumer dispute&#8217;, `defect&#8217;,<br \/>\n`deficiency&#8217;, `goods&#8217;, `manufacturer&#8217;, `restrictive trade practice&#8217;,<br \/>\n`service&#8217;, `unfair trade practice&#8217;. It provides for establishment of<br \/>\nconsumer councils and adjudicatory forums at the District, State and<br \/>\nNational levels. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the<br \/>\nDistrict Forum can file an appeal before the State Commission. If he<br \/>\nis not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, a further<br \/>\nremedy is available by way of revision before the National<br \/>\nCommission. If the complaint is decided by the State Commission, the<br \/>\naggrieved person can file an appeal before the National Commission.<br \/>\nElaborate procedure has been laid down for filing of the complaints<br \/>\nand disposal thereof. Since the 1986 Act is a special statute enacted<br \/>\nby the Parliament for better protection of the interest of consumers<br \/>\nand a wholesome mechanism has been put in place for adjudication of<br \/>\nconsumer disputes, the remedy of appeal available to a person<br \/>\naggrieved by an order of the State Commission cannot but be treated<br \/>\nas an effective alternative remedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.<br \/>\n  \tAdmittedly, respondent No.1 had availed the alternative remedy<br \/>\navailable to it under Section 21 by filing an appeal against the<br \/>\norder of the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal,<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 chose to challenge the order of the State Commission<br \/>\nby filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was<br \/>\nentertained by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the assurance<br \/>\ngiven by the learned counsel that the appeal filed before the<br \/>\nNational Commission will be withdrawn. The order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge on 21.3.2007 or the one by which the petition<br \/>\nfiled by respondent No.1 was finally disposed of does not contain any<br \/>\nindication as to why the learned Single Judge thought it proper to<br \/>\nmake a departure from the rule that the High Court will not entertain<br \/>\na petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an<br \/>\neffective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In<br \/>\nour view, during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent No.1<br \/>\nunder Section 21 of the 1986 Act, the learned Single Judge was not at<br \/>\nall justified in entertaining the petition filed under Article 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution merely because he thought that the State Commission<br \/>\ndid not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of<br \/>\nthe scheme sanctioned by the Company Judge under<br \/>\nSection 391 read with Sections 392 an 394 of the Companies Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid decision of Madras High Court, Madhya Pradesh High<br \/>\nCourt and Apex Court, according to my opinion, petitioner is having<br \/>\nalternative effective statutory remedy to approach National<br \/>\nCommission against the order passed by State Commission in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nonly on this ground, present petition is not entertained by this<br \/>\nCourt. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of by this Court<br \/>\nwithout expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/11044\/2010 7\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11044 of 2010 ========================================================= SUB POST MASTER &amp; 1 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus ANSUYABEN GOVINDLAL DOSHI &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-123601","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>Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 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\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-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=\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T20:10:37+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\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T20:10:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1549,\"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\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T20:10:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 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":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 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\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-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":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T20:10:37+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\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T20:10:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010"},"wordCount":1549,"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\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010","name":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T20:10:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sub-vs-ansuyaben-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sub vs Ansuyaben on 23 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\/123601","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=123601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}