{"id":143910,"date":"2008-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-30T14:45:38","modified_gmt":"2018-03-30T09:15:38","slug":"harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9351\/2008\t 11\/ 11\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. 9351 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nFor Approval\nand Signature:  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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\nHARIVADAN\n@ HARIBHAI NANDUBHAIPATEL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMANAN\nROADWAYS - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKR KOSHTI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/07\/2008  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 14.3.2008<br \/>\npassed by the labour court, Surat in reference (LCS) No.76\/95<br \/>\nwhereby, the labour court has partly allowed the said reference by<br \/>\ndirecting the respondent herein to reinstate the present petitioner<br \/>\nwith continuity of service and to pay 50% of back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nfacts coming out, about the dispute, from the impugned award and<br \/>\nrelevant for the purpose of present petition, are recapitulated<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner herein approached the labour court by raising industrial<br \/>\ndispute challenging his termination from service by the respondent<br \/>\nherein. The petitioner&#8217;s case before the labour court was that he was<br \/>\nemployed by the respondent w.e.f. 15.5.88 in its Ahmedabad branch &#8211;<br \/>\noffice as a clerk and subsequently, when a branch &#8211; office was<br \/>\nstarted at Surat, he was transferred to the said Surat branch ?<br \/>\noffice and that while he was working at Ahmedabad branch &#8211; office he<br \/>\nwas being paid Rs.2,000\/- pm and after he was transferred to Surat,<br \/>\nhis salary was enhanced to Rs.2,500\/-pm but when he started making<br \/>\ndemands for his rights including full salary in accordance with law,<br \/>\nhis service was orally terminated w.e.f. 31.12.93.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Koshti appears for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas preferred present petition for challenging the award to the<br \/>\nlimited extent by which the 50% of the back wages is denied to the<br \/>\npetitioner because the labour court has erred in denying the balance<br \/>\n50% of back wages to the petitioner. He further submitted that it is<br \/>\nonly on presumption and without any justification that the labour<br \/>\ncourt has denied the benefit of balance 50% of back wages. He also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the delay of 13 years in concluding the proceedings<br \/>\ncannot be attributed to the petitioner alone, more particularly, when<br \/>\nat two different stages, the reference was decided ex-parte and<br \/>\nproceedings were restored at the request of the present respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nreference proceedings were decided ex-parte once by ex-parte award<br \/>\ndated 22.12.2005 in respect of which the application under Rule-26(A)<br \/>\nwas preferred and numbered as Misc. Application No.43\/2006. However,<br \/>\nto support his contention that reference proceedings were decided<br \/>\ntwice, Mr. Koshti relied upon a copy of the order dated 28.11.2006<br \/>\npassed in said Misc. Application No.43\/2006 wherein, the labour court<br \/>\nhas made reference of another restoration application No.41\/2003. On<br \/>\nthe basis of the said details, Mr. Kosti submitted that the delay in<br \/>\nthe proceedings may not be attributed to the petitioner and on that<br \/>\ncount it would not be justified to deny balance 50% of the back<br \/>\nwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nperusal of the impugned award it transpires that aggrieved by the<br \/>\naction of the respondent the petitioner had raised an industrial<br \/>\ndispute which  culminated into the said reference. The orders of<br \/>\nreference appears to have been made in 1995. The said reference was<br \/>\nat one stage decided ex-parte on account of absence of the respondent<br \/>\nherein. Thereafter, the respondent employer preferred Misc.<br \/>\nApplication being Misc. Application No.43\/2006 under Rule-26(A) of<br \/>\nthe Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and prayed<br \/>\nfor restoration of the proceedings of the said reference. The labour<br \/>\ncourt was pleased to pass an order dated 28.11.2006 and allowed the<br \/>\nsaid Misc. Application and restored to file the proceedings of the<br \/>\nreference. The said order dated 28.11.2006 was challenged by the<br \/>\npresent petitioner by way of writ petition being special civil<br \/>\napplication No.21921\/2007. In the said proceedings, appearance on<br \/>\nbehalf of the present respondent was entered and a statement on<br \/>\nbehalf of the present respondent was made before this court that<br \/>\nwithout prejudice to the rights and contentions, the respondent was<br \/>\nready to reinstate the petitioner. This court (Coram: Hon&#8217;ble Mr.<br \/>\nJustice S.R.Brahmbhatt) passed an order dated 28.9.2007 recording the<br \/>\nsaid statement of the present respondent and directed the labour<br \/>\ncourt to decide the reference (the proceedings of which were already<br \/>\nrestored by the labour court vide order dated 28.11.2006) preferably<br \/>\nwithin a period of 4 months. With such observation, the said petition<br \/>\nwas disposed of by virtue of the order dated 28.9.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nappears that pursuant to the said order of this court in the<br \/>\nproceedings commenced before the labour court and the respondent<br \/>\nfiled written statement wherein the respondent claimed the petitioner<br \/>\nwas working as a peon and not as a clerk as claimed by the petitioner<br \/>\nand that the transfer to Surat was effected at the request of the<br \/>\npetitioner, however, in 1995 the said branch &#8211; office of the<br \/>\nrespondent could not be sustained and therefore, the same had to be<br \/>\nclosed and despite such fact ?  situation the respondent had shown<br \/>\nreadiness to reinstate the petitioner and the respondent was ready<br \/>\nand willing to allow the petitioner to resume his duties. During the<br \/>\nproceedings, depositions of petitioner and of a partner of the<br \/>\nrespondent were recorded. After evaluating the documentary and oral<br \/>\nevidence obtaining on record, the labour court came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the service of the petitioner herein was terminated by the<br \/>\nrespondent and that the petitioner was entitled for relief of<br \/>\nreinstatement.  The labour court also took notice of the statement<br \/>\nmade on behalf of the respondent in the proceedings before this<br \/>\ncourt. The labour court has also reproduced in the impugned award<br \/>\nsome of the portion of the deposition of the respondent&#8217;s partner &#8211;<br \/>\nwitness from which it appears that the said witness admitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner was working as a clerk and it was for the first time that<br \/>\nduring the proceedings before this court that the respondent had<br \/>\nshown readiness to reinstate the petitioner and that no notice or<br \/>\ncharge-sheet was served to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhile<br \/>\nreproducing the deposition of respondent&#8217;s  witness, the labour court<br \/>\nhas also recorded that since 1994, the respondent establishment i.e.<br \/>\nManan Roadways is closed and is not functioning and that the Surat<br \/>\nbranch &#8211; office is also closed and not functioning. The labour court<br \/>\nfound it just and proper to direct the respondent to reinstate the<br \/>\npresent petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the challenge against the impugned award which deny 50% of<br \/>\nback wages to the petitioner is concerned, at the outset, it is<br \/>\nrequired to be noted that while the petitioner claimed that his<br \/>\nservice was orally terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1993, he appears to have<br \/>\ninitiated the proceedings for raising  industrial dispute after lapse<br \/>\nof some time inasmuch as the order of reference is made in March,<br \/>\n1995 i.e. after almost one year.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFurther,<br \/>\nin his deposition, the petitioner herein has admitted that he is<br \/>\nresiding in rented premises for which he pays rent of Rs.800\/- pm. <\/p>\n<p>\tSince<br \/>\nthe petitioner has chosen not to produce copy of the depositions on<br \/>\nrecord, it is only from the award that one has to gather the details<br \/>\nof the oral evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom<br \/>\nperusal of the award, it appears that the petitioner herein has<br \/>\nadmitted that he has two children; a daughter (of 15 years) and a son<br \/>\n(of 19 years) and his son is studying in engineering faculty. The<br \/>\npetitioner also admitted that he is a Commerce graduate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nappears from the award that while considering the issue regarding<br \/>\nback wages, the labour court has taken into consideration the<br \/>\naforesaid details coming out from petitioner&#8217;s evidence and has also<br \/>\ntaken into account that part of respondent&#8217;s evidence, which is not<br \/>\ndisproved by the petitioner viz. the establishments of the respondent<br \/>\nin Ahmedabad as well as Surat have been closed down. The court has<br \/>\nalso considered that the proceedings have been continued for almost<br \/>\n13 years. Thus, the labour court appears to have considered the<br \/>\nrelevant aspects while deciding the issue of back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nsubmissions of Mr. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioner, the<br \/>\ndelay in conclusion of the proceedings cannot be attributed to or<br \/>\nheld against the petitioner particularly because the reference<br \/>\nproceedings were twice decided ex-parte. Even after considering the<br \/>\nsaid aspect the fact remains that the order of reference was made<br \/>\nafter almost one year since the alleged date of termination and after<br \/>\nthe order dated 28.11.2006 restoring the proceedings almost 11 months<br \/>\nwere consumed in the proceedings preferred by petitioner challenging<br \/>\nthe order of lower court restoring the reference proceedings.  From<br \/>\nthe reading of the award, it transpires and becomes clear that the<br \/>\nlabour court has examined the relevant aspects while deciding the<br \/>\nissue regarding back wages and while denying the 50% back wages. The<br \/>\nfactors which have been taken into account for not granting 50% back<br \/>\nwages cannot be considered irrelevant or extraneous, much less<br \/>\nperverse. The labour court appears to be mind full of the expenses<br \/>\nwhich a family of four persons with two growing children pursuing<br \/>\ntheir studies has to incur and also the fact that the petitioner pays<br \/>\nRs.800\/- rent per month. In the circumstances, no error can be found<br \/>\nin labour court&#8217;s observation that the petitioner could not have<br \/>\ncarried-on all such obligations without being employed. Such<br \/>\nreasoning of labour court cannot be brushed aside or ignored as<br \/>\nbaseless or mere ipse dixit. Thus, it is after taking into<br \/>\naccount relevant aspects that the court considered it appropriate to<br \/>\nnot grant 50% of back wages. The benefit of back wages should not be<br \/>\ngranted mechanically or automatically as a request to the benefit of<br \/>\nreinstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\nnow it is settled legal position in light of the judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Haryana Roadways V\/s.<br \/>\nRudhan Singh reported in [2005(5) SCC 591] that<br \/>\nwhile deciding the issue regarding back wages, several factors and<br \/>\naspects have to be taken into account by the labour court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, since it is the workman who has approached this<br \/>\ncourt by way of present petition demanding the balance 50% of back<br \/>\nwages, this court does not consider it appropriate to examine the<br \/>\nissue as to whether the labour court was right and justified in<br \/>\nawarding 50% of back wages or not. However, on perusal and<br \/>\nexamination of the award and on examining the reasons recorded by the<br \/>\nlabour court in not granting the balance 50% of back wages, it cannot<br \/>\nbe said that the labour court has committed any error of law or<br \/>\njurisdiction while not granting the balance 50% of back wages and it<br \/>\nalso cannot be said that the award is perverse and \/ or unsustainable<br \/>\nwith regard to the denial of balance 50% of back wages. Hence, the<br \/>\nimpugned award does not warrant any interference and the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner also does not warrant enhancement of benefit of back wages<br \/>\nand this court also does not  find any merit in the petition claiming<br \/>\nmodification of award so as to grant higher rate of back wages. Thus,<br \/>\nthe petition is not entertained and the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.M.Thaker,<br \/>\nJ.] <\/p>\n<p>kdc\/tfxps1<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9351\/2008 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9351 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-143910","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>Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - 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\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-30T09:15:38+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T09:15:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1792,\"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\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T09:15:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - 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\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-30T09:15:38+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T09:15:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008"},"wordCount":1792,"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\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008","name":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T09:15:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivadan-vs-manan-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harivadan vs Manan on 17 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/143910","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=143910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}