{"id":144630,"date":"2011-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-11T06:50:14","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T01:20:14","slug":"gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1810\/2010\t 9\/ 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\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1810 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n<p>GAUTAM<br \/>\nSILK MILLS PVT LTD &amp; 1 &#8211; Appellant(s)<\/p>\n<p>Versus<\/p>\n<p>COMMISSIONER<br \/>\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS &#8211; Opponent(s)<\/p>\n<p>=========================================================<\/p>\n<p>Appearance<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>MR<br \/>\nPARESH M DAVE for<br \/>\nAppellant(s) : 1 &#8211; 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>None for Opponent(s) :\n<\/p>\n<p>1,<br \/>\n=========================================================<\/p>\n<p>CORAM<br \/>\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n<p>HONOURABLE<br \/>\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI<\/p>\n<p>and<\/p>\n<p>HONOURABLE<br \/>\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI<\/p>\n<p>Date<br \/>\n:    01\/07\/2011 <\/p>\n<p>CAV<br \/>\nORDER (Per : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA<br \/>\nGOKANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.<br \/>\n\tAppellants, being aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise &amp;<br \/>\nService Tax Appellate Tribunal (&#8220;CESTAT&#8221; for short) dated<br \/>\n1st May 2008, have challenged the same in the present Appeal<br \/>\npreferred u\/s. 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (&#8220;hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as Act&#8221;) proposing the following questions of law :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tWhether the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal is legally correct in upholding penalties of amounts in<br \/>\nexcess of Rs.1000\/- u\/s. 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the<br \/>\nappellants in the facts of this case ?\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tWhether the order of<br \/>\nthe Appellate Tribunal holding the appellants liable for penalty is<br \/>\nlegally correct and justified in the facts of this case ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTo<br \/>\ncapsulize the facts of the present appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tAppellant-\n<\/p>\n<p>Company has been engaged in the business  of undertaking dutiable<br \/>\nprocesses like bleaching, dyeing, finishing etc., on textile fabrics.<br \/>\nThe appellant also carry out the said process on job work basis. It<br \/>\nis averred in the present appeal memo that the appellants  processed<br \/>\ncertain fabrics of one M\/s. Sonu Exports whose two consignments of<br \/>\nprocessed fabrics were removed from the appellants&#8217; factory under<br \/>\ninvoices dated 22nd<br \/>\nApril,1998 issued by M\/s.  Sonu Exports; as a Merchant Exporter.<br \/>\nExcise duties were not discharged and goods are cleared from AR-4<br \/>\nNos. 13\/98-99 and 14\/98-99 both dated 24th<br \/>\nApril, 1998 and signed by merchant exporter.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nis further averred that these goods were received at Mumbai Port,<br \/>\nwhere the customs authorities initiated enquiry into the affairs of<br \/>\nM\/s. Sonu Exports which is merchant exporter. On the ground that the<br \/>\nfabric found from the container in which they were brought to the<br \/>\nport were  less than the quantity<br \/>\nshown in the export documents. Investigation was undertaken and<br \/>\neventually a show cause notice was issued on 21st<br \/>\nNovember, 2001 proposing the action against M\/s. Sonu Exports and its<br \/>\npartners and also against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAfter<br \/>\nduly adjudicating contentions raised by both  sides, the Commissioner<br \/>\nof Central Excise &amp; Customs in its Order-in-original dated 29th<br \/>\nMarch, 2004 confiscated the fabrics and imposed  penalty on the<br \/>\nmerchant exporter as well as on its partners, of the<br \/>\nappellant-company u\/s. 114 of the Customs Act, penalty of Rs.<br \/>\n5,00,000\/- had<br \/>\nbeen imposed and personal penalty of<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>on the second appellant; who is Director of the first company. The<br \/>\npresent appellant preferred an appeal before Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\nhaving been aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, which came to be<br \/>\ndecided by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 1st<br \/>\nMay, 2008 whereby, it reduced penalty on the    appellant-company  to<br \/>\nRs. 1,00,000\/- and Rs.20,000\/-  by holding that the appellant was<br \/>\naware of the design of merchant exporter of indulging in the illegal<br \/>\nactivities as two consignments of the fabric in question were stuffed<br \/>\nin container for export purposes at appellants&#8217; factory.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tBeing aggrieved by this<br \/>\nimpugned order of the CESTAT, the present appeal is preferred raising<br \/>\nthe aforementioned questions of law .\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHeard learned counsel<br \/>\nMr.P.M.Dave with Mr.Dhaval Shah, who have strenuously and forcefully<br \/>\nargued before this Court that the present appellant-company and its<br \/>\nDirector  by no  stretch of imagination could be visited with the<br \/>\npenalty for breach made by the merchant exporter. As there is<br \/>\nabsolutely no role to be played by the appellant; except processing<br \/>\nthe fabric of merchant exporter in the factory. And as goods were<br \/>\ncleared from the appellant&#8217;s factory for exports under AR-4, no<br \/>\npenalty could be levied on the appellant. They also emphasized<br \/>\nreiteratively that appellant-company and Director had enjoyed in the<br \/>\nbusiness circle a very high reputation all throughout these years.<br \/>\nThe findings of the Tribunal are bereft of any sound logic and valid<br \/>\nbasis, it must be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tOn<br \/>\nduly considering the submissions of learned counsel and closely<br \/>\nperusing the orders of adjudicating authorities and materials brought<br \/>\nforth in the present Appeal, this Court is of the firm opinion that<br \/>\nthe appeal deserves dismissal, as there being no question of law to<br \/>\nbe determined by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tBefore<br \/>\nexamining the order of the Tribunal, it would be apt to mention that<br \/>\nsection 114 of the Customs Act provides for penalty if anyone<br \/>\nattempts to export goods in the manner contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section<br \/>\n114 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads thus-\n<\/p>\n<p>Penalty<br \/>\nfor attempt to export goods improperly, etc &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Any<br \/>\nperson who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act<br \/>\nwhich act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation<br \/>\nunder section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act,<br \/>\nshall be liable &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tin the case of goods in<br \/>\n\trespect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any<br \/>\n\tother law for the time being in force, to a penalty (not exceeding<br \/>\n\tthree  times the value of the goods  as declared by the exporter or<br \/>\n\tthe value as determined under this Act) whichever is the greater;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tin the case of dutiable<br \/>\n\tgoods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty (not exceeding the<br \/>\n\tduty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees) whichever is the<br \/>\n\tgreater;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tin the case of any other<br \/>\n\tgoods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as<br \/>\n\tdeclared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act,<br \/>\n\twhichever is the greater)<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThis<br \/>\ncharging provision of penalty shall have to be considered in light of<br \/>\nthe fact proved before the adjudicating authorities. This whole thing<br \/>\nwas noticed on the basis of specific intelligence with regard to the<br \/>\nshort shipment in the export consignment in respect of two<br \/>\nconsignments stuffed into the container on 21st<br \/>\nApril, 1998  under two AR4. This was in relation to M\/s. Sonu Exports<br \/>\nwhose partner admitted that fabrics were of inferior quality. Inspite<br \/>\nof  issuance of several summons, partner of M\/s. Sonu Exports never<br \/>\nwent for the examination of goods lying in the container at Bombay,<br \/>\nand resultantly, when the same was examined in the presence of two<br \/>\nindependent witnesses   on 24th<br \/>\nMay, 2001, it was found that the same was short by many L.Mtrs. and<br \/>\nthe quality of fabric was also found to be inferior.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.1\tIt<br \/>\nalso further emerges from the findings of the Tribunal that Appellant<br \/>\nNo.2 pleaded ignorance about any shortage of material in container.<br \/>\nHowever, the conclusion drawn by the Department was that the<br \/>\nappellant was responsible to ensure that both the quantity and<br \/>\nquality of goods stuffed in the  container was the same, as described<br \/>\nin the documents and invoice of AR-4. It is also needed to be noted<br \/>\nat this stage that container was<br \/>\nopened after three years under the supervision of the Central Excise<br \/>\nOfficer to certify the quantity. The Commissioner also relied on the<br \/>\nstatement of Shri Ashok Kumar Khetan partner of M\/s. Sonu Exports. He<br \/>\nhad claimed duty drawback in respect of 27 shipments without<br \/>\nreceiving foreign exchange.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIt<br \/>\nwas also argued before the Tribunal that only evidence available<br \/>\nagainst the present appellant was the statement of co-accused and in<br \/>\nthe said statement Mr. Khetan had explained the modus operandi<br \/>\nand other relevant details. Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe shortage of quantity could not have happened without knowledge<br \/>\nof present appellant and its Director; in as much as  stuffing was<br \/>\ndone in the factory of appellant and that no tempering of  seal of<br \/>\ncontainer was found which continued to remain sealed  after  loading<br \/>\nat the factory. It concluded that the appellant was aware of the<br \/>\nmisdeed of M\/s.Sonu Exports. Considering this as the connivance  on<br \/>\nthe part of the present appellant, the Tribunal deemed it fit to<br \/>\nimpose the penalty. However, keeping in mind, the value of fabric<br \/>\nmis-declared and consequential benefit to the merchant exporters, it<br \/>\nconsiderably reduced the penalty of both the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt<br \/>\nwas also argued before this Court that penalty could be visited by<br \/>\ninvoking provision of Section 114<br \/>\nof Customs Act. In case of dutiable goods as defined under the<br \/>\nCustoms Act, to mean    any goods which are chargeable to duty and on<br \/>\nwhich duty has not been paid. However, there being mixed questions of<br \/>\nlaw and facts and same having been extensively dealt with by the<br \/>\nTribunal, this Court sees<br \/>\nno ground to interfere with the order of Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.<br \/>\n   Before concluding, one or two aspects need further emphasis.<br \/>\nReliance placed  by the Tribunal on the version of partner of M\/s.<br \/>\nSonu Exports, is not a co-accused but a co-defendent. And, in wake of<br \/>\nother overwhelming circumstances and evidences, even if this solitary<br \/>\nstatement of partner of merchant export is not given its due<br \/>\nweightage, the same in no manner add any advantage to the cause of<br \/>\nappellants of accepting their innocences. It would be needed to make<br \/>\na mention of the fact that even under the prosecution u\/s. 135 of the<br \/>\nCustoms Act, statement of co-accused; if is not retracted,  the same<br \/>\ncan be relied upon by considering the attending circumstances.<br \/>\nPresent proceedings, not being the criminal proceedings and as<br \/>\nmentioned hereinabove, the statement of Mr. Khetan being that of a<br \/>\nco-defendant and not of a co-accused, authorities sought to be relied<br \/>\nupon by the learned counsel of the appellant would not come to their<br \/>\nrescue.  This Court is of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe Tribunal, though could have confirmed levying of penalty at a<br \/>\nhigher rate, it had taken a moderate view by reducing the same. With<br \/>\nall the findings narrated and discussed hereinabove,  this  Court has<br \/>\nno reason to interfere with the same in the present Appeal.<br \/>\nResultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>{Akil Kureshi, J.}<\/p>\n<p>{Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.}<\/p>\n<p>Bina*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1810\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1810 of 2010 ========================================================= GAUTAM SILK MILLS PVT LTD &amp; 1 &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; [&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-144630","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gautam vs Appellants on 1 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\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-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=\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T01:20:14+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\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T01:20:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1650,\"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\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T01:20:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 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":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 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\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-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":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T01:20:14+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\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T01:20:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011"},"wordCount":1650,"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\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011","name":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T01:20:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gautam-vs-appellants-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gautam vs Appellants on 1 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\/144630","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=144630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}