{"id":14008,"date":"2011-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-21T06:46:56","modified_gmt":"2017-03-21T01:16:56","slug":"kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\/16734\/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\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 16734 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKANAIYALAL\nDAHYABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nORIENTAL\nBANK OF COMMERCE - THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDG CHAUHAN for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR KM PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 1 -\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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/06\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan appearing on behalf of petitioner<br \/>\nand learned advocate Mr. K. M. Parikh appearing for<br \/>\nrespondent-Oriental Bank of Commerce.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, petitioner has challenged order of removal dated<br \/>\n24\/7\/2007 and order passed by Appellate Authority dated 30\/12\/2009.<br \/>\nThe affidavit in reply is filed by respondents against which no<br \/>\nrejoinder is filed by petitioner.  However, when the matter is taken<br \/>\nup for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing on behalf of<br \/>\npetitioner has raised contention that against removal order dated<br \/>\n24\/7\/2007, a departmental appeal under revised rules is preferred by<br \/>\npetitioner on 24\/11\/2009 which has been decided by Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority on 5\/12\/2009 without even issuing notice to petitioner and<br \/>\neven without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing.  Learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. K. M. Parikh appearing for respondents raised contention<br \/>\nthat appeal is available to petitioner under Rule-17 of Oriental Bank<br \/>\nof Commerce Officers&#8217; Service Regulation, 1982 and Officer Employees&#8217;<br \/>\n(Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1982 where there is no provision<br \/>\nhas been made which requires reasonable opportunity of hearing to<br \/>\npetitioner at the time of deciding appeal preferred by petitioner<br \/>\nbefore Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan submitted before this Court that in case<br \/>\nif any decision if it is adverse has to be taken up by Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority while deciding appeal then it having adverse civil<br \/>\nconsequences then reasonable opportunity of hearing must have to be<br \/>\ngiven by Appellate Authority to petitioner.  Such view has been taken<br \/>\nby Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of<br \/>\n1996 dated 11\/3\/2005.  The said order is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;<a href=\"\/doc\/32647475\/\">In<br \/>\nState of Orissa v.   Dr.<\/a>(Miss)  Binapani  Dei, AIR  1967  SC  1269,<br \/>\nthe  Supreme  Court  recognised the applicability of the rules of<br \/>\nnatural justice  in  purely administrative   matters  and  laid  down<br \/>\n the  following propositions:\n<\/p>\n<p> I.\tThe<br \/>\nrule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be<br \/>\npassed is entitled to a hearing applies alike  to  judicial<br \/>\ntribunals  and  bodies  of   persons invested   with  authority  to<br \/>\nadjudicate  upon  matters involving civil  consequences.    It  is<br \/>\none   of   the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that<br \/>\nevery citizen   is  protected  against  exercise  of  arbitrary<br \/>\nauthority by the State or its  officers.    Duty  to  act judicially<br \/>\nwould,  therefore, arise from the very nature of the function<br \/>\nintended to be performed:  it need not be shown to be super-added.<br \/>\nIf there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice  of  a<br \/>\nperson,  duty  to  act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such<br \/>\npower.  If the  essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the<br \/>\nprejudice of a person is made, the order  is  a  nullity.  That is a<br \/>\nbasic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof  transcends<br \/>\nthe significance of a decision in any particular case.\n<\/p>\n<p> II.\tIt<br \/>\nis true that the order  is  administrative  in character,   but<br \/>\neven  an  administrative  order  which involves civil consequences,<br \/>\nas already stated,  must  be made consistently with the rules of<br \/>\nnatural justice after informing  the first respondent of the case of<br \/>\nthe State, the evidence in  support  thereof  and  after  giving  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to  the  first respondent of being heard and meeting or<br \/>\nexplaining the evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/639803\/\">In<br \/>\nA.K.Kraipak  v.    Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1970 SC 150, the Supreme Court<br \/>\nheld that thin line of distinction between administrative and  quasi<br \/>\njudicial  function  is gradually  diminishing and that the rule of<br \/>\nfairness\/rule of  hearing  must  be   read   as   implicit   in<br \/>\nevery administrative  action  which results in an adverse order<br \/>\nagainst an affected person.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1764789\/\">In<br \/>\nSayeedur Rehman v.  State of Bihar,  AIR<\/a>  1973 SC  239, the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt treated the unwritten right of hearing as a part of the concept<br \/>\nof rule of law by making the following observations:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;This<br \/>\n unwritten  right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision  by<br \/>\nany  authority  which  decides  a controversial  issue  affecting<br \/>\nthe  rights of the rival contestants.  This right has its roots in<br \/>\nthe  notion  of fair procedure.    It  draws  the  attention of the<br \/>\nparty concerned to the imperative necessity of not  overlooking the<br \/>\nother side of the case before coming to its decision, for  nothing<br \/>\nis more likely to conduce to just and right decision than the<br \/>\npractice  of  giving  hearing  to  the affected parties.  The<br \/>\nomission of express requirement of fair  hearing  in  the  rules  or<br \/>\nother  source of power claimed for reconsidering an other  is<br \/>\nsupplied  by  the rule  of  justice which is considered as an<br \/>\nintegral part of our judicial process which also governs quasi<br \/>\njudicial authorities when deciding controversial points  affecting<br \/>\nrights of parties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/859161\/\">In<br \/>\nSwadesi  Cotton  Mills v.  Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 818,<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1306907\/\">S.L.Kapoor v.  Jagmohan and others<\/a>, AIR 1981 SC 136, <a href=\"\/doc\/1766147\/\">Smt.  Maneka<br \/>\nGandhi v.  Union of India, AIR<\/a>  1978 SC 597,  <a href=\"\/doc\/709776\/\">Olga Telis v.  Bombay<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation, AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 180 the Supreme Court reiterated<br \/>\nand  emphasized that  every  administrative  action which visits a<br \/>\nperson with adverse civil consequences must  be  preceded  by  a<br \/>\nnotice and opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\nhave prefaced the disposal of this  appeal  by making  reference  to<br \/>\nthe above noted judicial precedents because  the   only   legal<br \/>\nissue   which   calls   for determination  by  the  Division  Bench<br \/>\nis  whether  the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the  action<br \/>\ntaken by  the  appellant  for  revising  the  pay  scale of the<br \/>\nrespondent and effecting recovery from  his  pay  on  the ground of<br \/>\nviolation of rules of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA<br \/>\nperusal of the record shows that the respondent joined service as<br \/>\nSales Tax Inspector on  1.2.1973.    In furtherance  of Resolution<br \/>\ndated 5.7.1991 passed by State Government, Commissioner of Sales Tax,<br \/>\n Ahmedabad  issued order  dated  7.11.1992 and fixed the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\npay in the higher scale.  After two years and about nine  months the<br \/>\n State  Government  vide  Resolution  dated  16.8.94 amended the<br \/>\nearlier resolution and revised  the  criteria for grant  of  higher<br \/>\ngrade.    As  a sequel to the last mentioned resolution,<br \/>\nCommissioner,  Sales  Tax,  passed order  dated  11.12.95  for<br \/>\nre-fixing  the  pay  of  the respondent and recovery of the  alleged<br \/>\nexcess  paid  to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent challenged the re-fixation of  his pay  and  consequential<br \/>\n withdrawal  of  higher  grade in Special Civil Application  No.3\/96<br \/>\non  various  grounds, including the one that the action taken by<br \/>\nnon-applicants (appellants  herein)  is vitiated due to violation of<br \/>\nthe rules of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n the  reply  affidavit  on   behalf   of   the appellants  it  was<br \/>\nnot  disputed  that  the  pay of the respondent had been re-fixed<br \/>\nwithout  giving  him  notice and  opportunity  of  hearing, but an<br \/>\nattempt was made to justify the impugned  action  on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nrevised policy decision taken by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n learned  Single  Judge  held that the action taken  by  the<br \/>\ncompetent   authority   to   re-fix   the respondent&#8217;s  pay  was<br \/>\nvitiated  due to violation of the rules of natural justice.  He,<br \/>\naccordingly,  quashed  the revised  fixation of the respondent&#8217;s pay<br \/>\nwith liberty to the appellants to pass fresh order after  complying<br \/>\nwith the rules of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\n have  heard Shri A.Y.Kogje, learned Assistant Government Pleader,<br \/>\nand with his assistance gone  through the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSince<br \/>\n it  is  an undisputed position that before re-fixing the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s pay and ordering  recovery  of the alleged excess amount<br \/>\npaid to him, the appellants did not give any notice or opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing, we have no hesitation  to hold that the appellants had<br \/>\nviolated rule of audi alteram partem and the learned Single  Judge<br \/>\ndid not   commit  any  illegality  by  quashing  order  dated<br \/>\n11.12.95.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nSayeedur Rehman&#8217;s  case  (Supra),  a  somewhat similar  question  was<br \/>\nconsidered by the Supreme Court in the backdrop of the  fact  that<br \/>\nthe  management  of  the school  had,  after  giving  financial<br \/>\nbenefits  to  the appellant for the period during which he  remained<br \/>\nunder suspension  reviewed  its  decision  without  giving  him<br \/>\nnotice and opportunity of hearing.  Their Lordships  held that  even<br \/>\nthough  action  taken  by  the management was purely  administrative<br \/>\nin  nature,  the  appellant   was required  to  be  heard  before<br \/>\nbeing  deprived  of  the financial benefits given  to  him  in<br \/>\npursuance  of  the earlier decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, it can not be denied that as a result of grant of<br \/>\nhigher  grade  the  respondent  had acquired   the   right   to<br \/>\nreceive  higher  emoluments.  Therefore, no order adversely affecting<br \/>\nhis right  to  be paid  salary  in  the higher grade and\/or for<br \/>\nrecovery of the amount already paid to him  could  have  been  passed<br \/>\nwithout issuing him notice incorporating the basis of the proposed<br \/>\naction  and giving him a reasonable opportunity to put forward his<br \/>\ndefence.  This having not  been  done, the   learned  Single  Judge,<br \/>\nin  our  opinion,  rightly nullified the action taken by the<br \/>\nappellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered all submissions made by both learned advocates<br \/>\nappearing for respective parties.  The order of Appellate Authority<br \/>\nis at page-36 of present petition wherein appeal has been decided by<br \/>\nAppellate Authority without even issuing notice to present<br \/>\npetitioner.  This facts are not in dispute after considering<br \/>\ncontentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Parikh appearing for<br \/>\nrespondents relying upon Rule-17 as referred above.  Therefore,<br \/>\nconsidering a basic principles of natural justice which requires<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity of hearing to concerned person, if any adverse<br \/>\norder having civil consequences is passed then said concerned person<br \/>\nmust have been given opportunity of hearing otherwise such order is<br \/>\nconsidered to be violative of basic principles of natural justice as<br \/>\ndecided by Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid decision.  If no<br \/>\nprovision is made in Rule-17 then also it should be read as<br \/>\nincorporated principle of natural justice must have to be complied<br \/>\nbefore passing any order adverse to petitioner while deciding a<br \/>\ndepartmental appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nlight of this order passed by Appellate Authority dated 5\/12\/2009<br \/>\nrejecting appeal preferred by petitioner is only hereby quashed and<br \/>\nset aside as it violated basic principle of natural justice and it is<br \/>\ndirected to Appellate Authority, General Manager, HRD to give<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and issue notice to<br \/>\npetitioner so he may remain present on date on which hearing is taken<br \/>\nplace and he may also file additional submission if he so desire and<br \/>\nthereafter fix matter for hearing and then to examine appeal<br \/>\npreferred by petitioner dated 24\/11\/2009 and then pass appropriate<br \/>\nreasoned order in accordance with rules and regulations as referred<br \/>\nabove and in law within a period of three months from receipt of copy<br \/>\nof present order and thereafter communicate decision to petitioner<br \/>\nwithout fail.  In case if appeal is rejected by Appellate Authority,<br \/>\nthen it is open for petitioner to challenge the same before<br \/>\nappropriate forum filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw.  As and when Appellate Authority issues notice to petitioner let<br \/>\nhe give some reasonable time so he may remain present before<br \/>\nAppellate Authority and it is directed to petitioner to cooperate<br \/>\nwith hearing of appeal and not to remain absent without having<br \/>\nunavoidable circumstance.  This  Court is also directed to Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and<br \/>\nthen only decide appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nview of above observations made by this Court, present petition is<br \/>\ndisposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p>(ila)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/16734\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16734 of 2010 ========================================================= KANAIYALAL DAHYABHAI PATEL &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE &#8211; THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER &amp; 1 [&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-14008","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>Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1844,\"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\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 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":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011"},"wordCount":1844,"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\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011","name":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T01:16:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-vs-oriental-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanaiyalal vs Oriental on 7 July, 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\/14008","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=14008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}