{"id":146554,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-26T18:19:44","modified_gmt":"2015-06-26T12:49:44","slug":"whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&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\/3573\/1999\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3573 of 1999\n \n\n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ \t\t\tSd\/- \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA \tSd\/-\n \n\n\n====================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n====================================\n \n\nMANILAL\nKUNVARJI SHAH - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJG\nARORA DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER &amp; 1 - Respondents\n \n\n==================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR SN SOPARKAR, Senior Advocate for\nPetitioner. \nMRS MAUNA M BHATT for\nRespondent. \n====================================\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \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.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/07\/2008 \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India challenging the order dated 23.02.1999 passed<br \/>\n\tby the respondent   the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-2,<br \/>\n\tBaroda rejecting the petitioner&#8217;s declaration filed under Section 89<br \/>\n\tof the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 made under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme<br \/>\n\t(&#8216;KVSS&#8217; for short).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\n\tCourt has admitted the petition and rule was issued by this Court on<br \/>\n\t11.06.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioner that during the assessment years 1991<br \/>\n\t  92 &amp; 1992   93, the petitioner was a partner of the firm,<br \/>\n\tnamely, M\/s. Mahavir Trading Company.  The petitioner had filed his<br \/>\n\treturn of income for the respective years declaring his share income<br \/>\n\tfrom the firm on the basis of returns of income filed by the firm,<br \/>\n\tand as per the allocation of his share of income, according to the<br \/>\n\tsaid returns of income of the firm.  The said firm approached the<br \/>\n\tSettlement Commission for settlement of its taxes for the assessment<br \/>\n\tyears 1991   92 &amp; 1992   93.  The Settlement Commission<br \/>\n\tpassed order under Section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on<br \/>\n\t29.09.1997 whereby the income of the firm was computed and allocated<br \/>\n\tthe said income in the hands of its partners.  As a result, the<br \/>\n\tshare income towards the petitioner from the firm was increased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe purpose of giving effect to the order of the Settlement<br \/>\n\tCommission, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 10 (1),<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad passed orders under Section 155 of the Act on 18.09.1998<br \/>\n\trectifying the assessment orders made earlier, as a result of which,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner was found liable to pay taxes for the assessment<br \/>\n\tyears 1991   92 and 1992   93.  The petitioner preferred two<br \/>\n\trevision petitions under Section 264 of the Act on 21.12.1998 for<br \/>\n\tthe respective years and the said revisions were pending.  The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner filed a declaration in Form No. 1A of KVSS Rules seeking<br \/>\n\tsettlement of tax disputes for the assessment years 1991   92 and<br \/>\n\t1992   93.  The respondent vide his order dated 22.02.1999<br \/>\n\trejected the declaration on the ground that there was no tax arrear<br \/>\n\tin petitioner&#8217;s case as on 31.03.1998 for the respective assessment<br \/>\n\tyears.  The demand in the petitioner&#8217;s case has been determined on<br \/>\n\t18.09.1998 i.e. after 31.03.1998 by giving effect to the order of<br \/>\n\tthe Settlement Commission in case of the firm, in which the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was a partner.  Therefore, in view of the provisions of<br \/>\n\tSection 95 (i) (b) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\n\tcase cannot be covered under the KVSS, 1998.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\n\tdeclaration filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 1991<br \/>\n\t92 and 1992   93 was dismissed as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis this order which is under challenge in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tS. N. Soparkar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\n\thas submitted that the respondent has erred in not appreciating the<br \/>\n\tScheme of the Act as also KVSS in proper perspective.  Admittedly,<br \/>\n\tthe demand arose against the petitioner, pursuant to the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Settlement Commission on 29.09.1997.  Once Settlement<br \/>\n\tCommission passed the order, the Assessing Officer was bound to<br \/>\n\trectify the assessment, in the case of the petitioner, under Section<br \/>\n\t155 (1) (a) of the Act.  The Assessing Officer ought to have done<br \/>\n\tthat immediately after 29.09.1997 i.e. the date of the order of the<br \/>\n\tSettlement Commission.  If there was delay on the part of the<br \/>\n\tAssessing Officer in passing the consequential order, pursuant to<br \/>\n\tthe order of the Settlement Commission, that would not lead to a<br \/>\n\tconclusion that as on 31.03.1998, there was no tax liability.  He<br \/>\n\thas also referred to and relied on the Circular dated 07.10.1998<br \/>\n\tissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.  Question No. 31 seeks<br \/>\n\tthe clarification as to what happens to the amount of tax arrear if<br \/>\n\tthe same is modified by an order under Section 154 passed after<br \/>\n\t31.03.1998.  In reply to this question, the Board has clarified that<br \/>\n\tthe order under Section 154 would rectify the apparent mistake in<br \/>\n\tthe order passed on or before 31.03.1998 and hence, it would relate<br \/>\n\tback to that order.  The tax arrear would accordingly stand modified<br \/>\n\tand in such cases, the modified tax arrear will constitute the tax<br \/>\n\tarrear for the purpose of declaration under the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSoparkar has, however, submitted that identical issue arose before<br \/>\n\tthis Court in  Special Civil Application No. 2221 of 1999 decided<br \/>\n\ton 01.07.2008 wherein this Court has held that the contention<br \/>\n\tbased on the above Circular of the Board dated 17.10.1998 does not<br \/>\n\tmerit acceptance.  Section 155 of the Act cannot be equated with<br \/>\n\tSection 154 of the Act   the former provisions being in relation<br \/>\n\tto various other consequential amendments, while Section 154 of the<br \/>\n\tAct specifically relates to rectification of any mistake apparent<br \/>\n\tfrom the record.  The Court, therefore, held that the petitioner is<br \/>\n\tnot entitled to seek a mandamus or any other writ to the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthority to accept the declaration made by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue<br \/>\n\trelied on the above decision of this Court which was rendered after<br \/>\n\tconsidering the Circular relied upon by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>After<br \/>\n\thaving heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. N. Soparkar appearing for<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel<br \/>\n\tappearing for the revenue and after considering the facts of the<br \/>\n\tpresent case in light of the earlier decision of this Court in the<br \/>\n\tcase of Kailash T. Agrawal V\/s. M. S. Thanvi Designated<br \/>\n\tAuthority (supra), we are of<br \/>\n\tthe view that since there is no demand outstanding as on 31.03.1998,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner is not entitled to seek a mandamus or any other writ<br \/>\n\tto the respondent authority to accept the declaration made by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner.  In absence of any error in the impugned order dated<br \/>\n\t23.02.1999, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.  Rule<br \/>\n\tis discharged without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t[K.\n<\/p>\n<p>A. PUJ, J.]\t\t[B. N. MEHTA, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\tSavariya<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3573\/1999 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3573 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Sd\/- ==================================== 1. Whether [&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-146554","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>Whether vs Jg on 23 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\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-26T12:49:44+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T12:49:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":976,\"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\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T12:49:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs Jg on 23 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":"Whether vs Jg on 23 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\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-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":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-26T12:49:44+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T12:49:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":976,"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\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008","name":"Whether vs Jg on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T12:49:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-jg-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs Jg on 23 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\/146554","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=146554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}