{"id":153366,"date":"2008-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-13T09:13:57","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T03:43:57","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 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\/9385\/2008\t 8\/ 8\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. 9385 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n \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 \n\nAHMEDABAD\nKAISER-I-HIND MILLS CO. LTD. - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDHANESH\nHARIVADAN DESAI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDIPAK R DAVE 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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner &#8211; a Public Limited Company has preferred present petition<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned<br \/>\nLabour Court in T Application No.137 of 1998. The petitioner has also<br \/>\nchallenged an order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the learned Industrial<br \/>\nCourt in Appeal (IC) No.49 of 2002 by above referred order dated<br \/>\n2.12.2003, the learned Industrial Court directed the present<br \/>\npetitioner to reinstate the respondent of present petition with 50%<br \/>\nback-wages on his original post in the same Department and with<br \/>\ncontinuity of services. Considering the submissions, RULE. At<br \/>\nthe joint request and with the consent of both the parties, the<br \/>\npetition is taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dave, learned advocate appears for the petitioner and Mr. Mankad,<br \/>\nlearned advocate appears on advance copy.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as a<br \/>\nprobationer and during the probation period, his services were<br \/>\nterminated. The respondent had, before termination put three months<br \/>\nservices and aggrieved by the action of the petitioner &#8211; Company, he<br \/>\napproached the learned Labour Court by way of above referred<br \/>\napplication No.137 of 1998, wherein the impugned order dated 1.5.2002<br \/>\ncame to be passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Company as well<br \/>\nas the respondent preferred appeals. Subsequently, after hearing both<br \/>\nthe sides, the learned Industrial Court passed impugned order dated<br \/>\n2.12.2003. As a result of which, the petitioner is required to<br \/>\nreinstate the respondent, the petitioner is also required to pay 50%<br \/>\nback-wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that in the interregnum, operations of<br \/>\nthe petitioner have been totally closed and almost all assets of the<br \/>\npetitioner Company have been disposed of and the employees have been,<br \/>\nunder settlement with representative Union, relieved from the<br \/>\nservice. Under the circumstances, it is practical impossibility for<br \/>\nthe petitioner to comply with the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIt<br \/>\nis relevant to note that the respondent has, on the other hand<br \/>\npreferred petition being Special Civil Application No.19921 of 2005<br \/>\nand has challenged the order passed by the learned Industrial Court<br \/>\nto the extent it denies the balance 50% back-wages and he has prayed<br \/>\nthat he may be granted 100% wages.  During the pendency of the<br \/>\naforesaid Special Civil Application No.19921 of 2005, prolonged<br \/>\ndeliberation for final settlement, as per the submissions of both the<br \/>\nsides are said to have taken place and though it was agreed, in<br \/>\nprinciple, to settle the dispute in monetary terms, since<br \/>\nreinstatement was an impossibility, a final settlement could not be<br \/>\narrived at between the parties on account of differences regarding<br \/>\nthe amount for final settlement.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner has come out with a case that in view of on-going process<br \/>\nof setting the dispute  between the parties that the petitioner did<br \/>\nnot prefer the petition at an earlier date and the petitioner was<br \/>\nhopeful that the dispute would be settled. However, the petitioner is<br \/>\nconstrained to prefer the present petition after almost five years<br \/>\nbecause the settlement could not be finalized.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\ntime time consumed in negotiation would not justify the delay in<br \/>\npreferring the petition and that is not a good reason to interfere<br \/>\nwith the judgment impugned in the petition, after a lapse of almost 5<br \/>\nyears. Further there are two concurrent decisions against the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tWhile<br \/>\nthe said aspects were being further considered during the submission<br \/>\nof the petitioner, further negotiation between the parties took place<br \/>\nand today Mr. Dave, learned advocate and Mr. Mankad, learned advocate<br \/>\njointly submitted that the parties have arrived at settlement and<br \/>\nboth petitions can be disposed of in view of the agreement between<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dave, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has agreed to<br \/>\npay lumpsum amount of Rs.1 Lac towards full and final settlement of<br \/>\nall claim of the respondent. Mr. Mankad, learned advocate submitted<br \/>\nthat respondent has agreed to accept the said amount as full and<br \/>\nfinal settlement of his claim and dispute. It is also agreed between<br \/>\nthe parties that upon payment of the said amount of Rs. 1 Lac for<br \/>\nfull and final settlement all the claims of the respondent shall<br \/>\nstand settled and if there is any other claim or dispute, the claim<br \/>\nshall be deemed to have been settled and waived by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dave, learned advocate submitted that in view of the financial<br \/>\ndifficulty of the petitioner, the petitioner would need some time to<br \/>\nmake the payment. Mr. Mankad, learned advocate on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent has accepted the said suggestion and it is agreed and<br \/>\nsettled between the parties that initially the petitioner would pay<br \/>\nan amount of Rs.25,000\/- on or before 20.8.2008 and balance payment<br \/>\nof Rs.75,000\/- will be cleared on or before 31.8.2008. Mr. Mankand,<br \/>\nlearned advocate on behalf of the respondent has accepted the said<br \/>\narrangement.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIn<br \/>\nthe aforesaid view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay<br \/>\nan amount of Rs.25,000\/- to the respondent as full and final<br \/>\nsettlement of all claims and disputes of respondent on or before<br \/>\n20.8.2008. The petitioner is further directed to make the payment of<br \/>\nRs.75,000\/- on or before 31.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner is directed to file an undertaking through its Director<br \/>\nwith this Court on or before 12.8.2008, declaring and undertaking<br \/>\nthat the aforesaid agreement shall be honoured and complied with. Mr.<br \/>\nMankad, learned advocate made request that the petitioner may be<br \/>\ndirected to make the payment through Account Payee Cheque. The<br \/>\npetitioner shall make the payment accordingly. Mr. Mankand submitted<br \/>\nthat the respondent is also present present in the Court and he has<br \/>\nmade the statements on his instruction. Mr. Dave also submitted that<br \/>\nthe Director of the petitioner Company is present in the court and he<br \/>\nhas made the statement as per his instructions.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, the order<br \/>\nimpugned in present petition stands modified accordingly i.e. in<br \/>\nterms of the said settlement and upon payment as aforesaid, the said<br \/>\njudgment and order would have been complied in this charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dave and Mr. Mankand, learned advocates jointly request to dispose of<br \/>\nthe petition in terms of the said settlement. Accordingly, Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No.19921 of 2005 is disposed of in terms of<br \/>\nsettlement.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.M.THAKER,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9385\/2008 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9385 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-153366","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-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=\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-13T03:43:57+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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T03:43:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1038,\"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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T03:43:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-13T03:43:57+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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T03:43:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008"},"wordCount":1038,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008","name":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T03:43:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-dhanesh-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Dhanesh on 5 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/153366","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=153366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}