{"id":140382,"date":"2010-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-08-07T14:14:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T08:44:21","slug":"g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"G vs H on 2 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G vs H on 2 March, 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\nSCA\/2754\/1994\t 6\/ 6\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. 2754 of 1994\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\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\nG\nR PARMAR - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nH\nC JAIN &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nIS SUPEHIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SV RAJU for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE\nUNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n3, \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: 02\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tPetitioner<br \/>\nis aggrieved by an order dated 16.11.1992 passed by the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority by which the petitioner has been awarded a penalty of<br \/>\nreduction of salary by one stage in time scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tPetitioner<br \/>\nwas employed with Punjab National Bank.  For certain alleged<br \/>\nmisconducts, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 26.12.1989. It was a<br \/>\ncharge against him that he acted negligently in discharge of his<br \/>\nduties.  In statement of imputation of charge, it is stated that<br \/>\npetitioner had enhanced the sanction limits, of lending, of  certain<br \/>\ncustomers of the bank despite following deficiencies<\/p>\n<p>a)\tThe<br \/>\npast conduct of the a\/c was not satisfactory e.g. the<br \/>\ncredit\tsummations for the year 1987 was only Rs.49,584\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>b)\tThe<br \/>\nparty&#8217;s integrity was in doubt e.g. there was shortage of stock\tin<br \/>\n1986 and the party intentionally withheld details of assets,\twhich<br \/>\nthey reportedly held, in the CR of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>c)\tThe<br \/>\nparty did not fulfill requirements like maintenance of<br \/>\nstock\tregister, routing the business through a\/c etc.<\/p>\n<p>d)\tThe<br \/>\na\/c had not been renewed for the last 5 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>e)\tThe<br \/>\nparty was also processing materials of others on contract basis \tand<br \/>\nit was not possible to ascertain whether the entire stocks\tbelongs to<br \/>\nthem or whether any unpaid stock is lying, as party was \tneither<br \/>\nmaintaining stock register nor invoices\/bills.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nwas therefore stated that petitioner had advanced monies where<br \/>\nrecovery was doubtful and thereby committed the said misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tPetitioner<br \/>\nresisted the charge.  Inquiry was conducted.  Inquiry Officer<br \/>\nsubmitted his report which was supplied to the petitioner.  He was<br \/>\nallowed to make his representation, which he did.  Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority eventually passed impugned order on 16.11.1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tCounsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner raised following contentions in support of the<br \/>\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>That<br \/>\n\tmandatory requirement under Regulation 6(17) of Punjab National Bank<br \/>\n\tOfficer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (herein<br \/>\n\tafter to be referred to as &#8216;the Regulations&#8217;) was not followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>That<br \/>\n\this representation was not taken into account by the Disciplinary<br \/>\n\tAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tCounsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner placed reliance on Division Bench decision of this<br \/>\nCourt dated 18.05.2005\/21.10.2005 in Letters<br \/>\nPatent Appeal No. 1798 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.11076<br \/>\nof 1994, wherein it is observed as under<\/p>\n<p> An<br \/>\nanalysis of the above reproduced portions of the judgment of the<br \/>\nConstitution Bench shows that the Supreme Court has in no uncertain<br \/>\nterms recognised the importance of the right available to the<br \/>\ndelinquent employee to make representation not only against the<br \/>\nprocedure adopted by the inquiry officer but also the merits of the<br \/>\nfindings recorded by him and the disciplinary authority, if any, by<br \/>\ndisagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer.  It is open to the<br \/>\ndelinquent to show that the inquiry was not held in accordance with<br \/>\nrelevant statutory rules, that he was not given full opportunity of<br \/>\ndefence and that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not<br \/>\nsupported by legally admissible evidence or that the finding  on any<br \/>\nparticular charge is based on no evidence. If the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer<br \/>\non one or more than one charges and reasons for disagreement are<br \/>\ncommunicated to the delinquent, then he can show that such reasons<br \/>\nare legally unsustainable or that tentative finding recorded by the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority is not supported by evidence or that the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority has ignored the material evidence.  On receipt<br \/>\nof the representation of the delinquent, the disci-plinary authority<br \/>\ngets an opportunity to  consider the objections and the plea taken by<br \/>\nhim and then decide whether or not the same have merit.  It is,<br \/>\ntherefore, imperative for the disciplinary authority to record<br \/>\nreasons, howsoever briefly, indicating an objective application of<br \/>\nmind to the points taken by the delinquent in his<br \/>\nreply\/representation.  Such application of mind has to be reflected<br \/>\nin the ultimate order to be passed by the disciplinary authority.<br \/>\nThis is the only way in which the disciplinary authority can comply<br \/>\nwith the requirement of passing of a speaking order.  Indeed, it has<br \/>\nneither been suggested before us nor the Assistant Government Pleader<br \/>\nargued that while imposing punishment on a delinquent the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority does not discharge quasi judicial function.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tWith<br \/>\nrespect to the first contention, the Regulation 6(17) need to be<br \/>\nnoted.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(17)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his<br \/>\nevidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself<br \/>\nexamined generally question him on the circumstances appearing<br \/>\nagainst him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer<br \/>\nemployee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence<br \/>\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that though required under the said<br \/>\nRegulation, he was not questioned by the Inquiry Officer as<br \/>\npetitioner had not examined himself during the inquiry.  Counsel for<br \/>\nthe bank, however, drew my attention to the Inquiry Officer&#8217;s report<br \/>\nwherein he has recorded as under<\/p>\n<p> The<br \/>\nentire proceedings are on documentary evidence.  Neither the<br \/>\nprosecution side nor the defence side like to produce oral evidence.<br \/>\nThe charge sheet employee also did not like to give his statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIt<br \/>\ncan thus be seen that the petitioner himself had not permitted any<br \/>\nsuch questioning.  He did not prefer to give any statement.  In his<br \/>\nrepresentation before the Disciplinary Authority against the inquiry<br \/>\nofficer&#8217;s report, though he has raised the contention that procedure<br \/>\nunder Regulation 6(17) was not followed, he has not disputed the<br \/>\nabove factual recording of the inquiry officer.  In absence of any<br \/>\nchallenge to such a finding, I have no choice but to accept the same<br \/>\nas true.  If that be the situation, the petitioner having refused to<br \/>\ngive any statement under Regulation 6(17), it cannot be held that the<br \/>\ninquiry officer did not follow the procedure laid down thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tWith<br \/>\nrespect to consideration of the representation of the petitioner by<br \/>\nthe Disciplinary Authority, the Authority has in the impugned order<br \/>\nitself narrated that  I have gone through the entire records,<br \/>\nincluding finding of the inquiry officer and other relevant<br \/>\ndocuments.   There is nothing on record to suggest that the said<br \/>\nobservation is incorrect.  It was not necessary for the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority to refer to each and every contention and sub-contention of<br \/>\nthe petitioner even though he was agreeing with the inquiry officer&#8217;s<br \/>\nfinding.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tFurther,<br \/>\nI find that the charges were borne out from documentary evidence on<br \/>\nrecord.  Such documents are not seriously in dispute.  Findings are<br \/>\nbased on admitted and undisputable documents.  Once the allegations<br \/>\nin the charge-sheet are established, it was thereafter upto the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority to come to appropriate finding whether the<br \/>\npetitioner could be stated to have committed the said misconduct.<br \/>\nPetitioner was admittedly holding a senior position in a bank.  He<br \/>\nhad made advances to certain customers which advances were not<br \/>\nsupported by proper security etc..  Recovery thereof had thus become<br \/>\ndoubtful.  If these charges are approved, surely the bank is right in<br \/>\ncoming to the conclusion that petitioner had acted delinquently in<br \/>\ndischarge of his duties.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tNo<br \/>\nfurther contentions have been raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.<br \/>\n\tIn the result, I find no merits in the petition, same is therefore<br \/>\ndismissed.  Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p> (Akil<br \/>\nKureshi, J.)<\/p>\n<p>menon<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court G vs H on 2 March, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2754\/1994 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2754 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-140382","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>G vs H on 2 March, 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\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G vs H on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T08:44:21+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G vs H on 2 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T08:44:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1193,\"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\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\",\"name\":\"G vs H on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T08:44:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G vs H on 2 March, 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":"G vs H on 2 March, 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\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G vs H on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T08:44:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G vs H on 2 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T08:44:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2"},"wordCount":1193,"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\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2","name":"G vs H on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T08:44:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-h-on-2-march-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G vs H on 2 March, 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\/140382","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=140382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}