{"id":161014,"date":"2011-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-21T12:54:32","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T07:24:32","slug":"notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCRA\/266\/2010\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\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 266 of 2010\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nALTAFHUSEN\nTAVAKKALHUSEN BUKHARI THROUGH POA WASIM Z FARUKI \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHRITY\nERACHSHA JINWALA & 2 \n\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMM SAIYED for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n1 - 3. \nMR BOMI H SETHNA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tpresent Civil Revision Application has been filed by the Petitioner\n<\/p>\n
\t– Original Defendant No.3, challenging the impugned judgment and
\n\tdecree passed in Civil Appeal No.90 of 1995 before the Appellate
\n\tBench of Small Causes Court dated 30.9.2010 allowing the Appeal of
\n\tthe Appellant – Respondent herein, on the grounds set out in
\n\tthe memo of the petition inter alia that the Rent Court had no
\n\tjurisdiction and the decision of the lower appellate Court is
\n\twithout any jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. M.M.Saiyed for the Petitioner has pointedly referred to
\n\tthe discussion about the possession as well as the fact about the
\n\trelationship, and claimed that admittedly he has been residing
\n\tbefore the deceased tenant died.  He therefore submitted that
\n\tSection 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates
\n\tControl Act, 1947 (“Rent Act” for short) would be
\n\tattracted.\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring
\n\tto the judgment of the Full Bench in case of Babubhai @
\n\tJayantilal Kalyanbhai & Ors. v. Shah Bharatkumar Ratilal &
\n\tOrs., reported in 1980
\n\tGLR 103 he has submitted that
\n\twhen it is inheritable and once it is found to be inheritable, the
\n\tdefinition of “family” should not be restricted and it
\n\tshould be construed broadly to include the present Petitioner also
\n\twho is the nephew, i.e. the  son
\n\tof daughter of sister of defendant no.1 named Bai Hajibegum.
\n\t Learned Advocate Mr.Saiyed has also referred to the judgment in
\n\tcase of Madhuben Natwarlal & Ors. v. Prajapati
\n\tParshottam Tulsidas,<\/a> reported
\n\tin 1990(2) G.L.H. 265 and
\n\tsubmitted that though the judgment has made observations that
\n\tit would not include a distant nephew or cousins as a family members
\n\tbut it has been in the different context, and therefore, the
\n\tjudgment may not have any application.  He has also submitted that
\n\tadmittedly, the trial Court has not considered this aspect which has
\n\tbeen considered, and the judgment of the lower appellate Court,
\n\twhich has denied the sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner.  He
\n\ttherefore submitted that the present Civil Revision Application may
\n\tbe allowed.  Admittedly, he was in the occupation of the premises
\n\tand would be covered under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. Bomi H. Shethna
\n\tfor the Respondent submitted the issue regarding the inheritance has
\n\tbeen discussed in the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small
\n\tCauses Court.  For that purpose, he referred to paragraphs 22 and 24
\n\tand submitted that even if the wider meaning is given to the term
\n\t“family” it could not include distant nephew as it has
\n\tbeen clarified in the subsequent judgment in case of Madhuben
\n\tNatwarlal & Ors. (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\t He pointedly referred to the observations made in this judgment and
\n\tsubmitted that it has been specifically observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“It
\n\tis true that in the said decision the Court has held that a
\n\tconspectus
\n\tof the connotation of the term ‘family’ which emerges
\n\tfrom a reference to the dictionaries clearly shows that
\n\tthe word ‘family’ has to be given not a restricted but a wider
\n\tmeaning so as to include not only the head of the family but all
\n\tmembers or descendants from the common ancestors who
\n\tare actually living with the same head.  From this Mr. Bavishi
\n\tSubmitted that as the appellants are descendants from the common
\n\tancestors, therefore the appellants would be the family members of
\n\tthe deceased Jamnadas.  In my view, this contention cannot be
\n\taccepted.  Merely because the word “common ancestors” is
\n\tused in the said judgment, it would not mean that distant nephews or
\n\tcousins should be considered as family members.  By amending Section
\n\t5(11)(c), the Legislature stepped in and provided a special mode of
\n\tsuccession to the tenancy rights or leasehold rights to the extent
\n\tof irremovability from possession to those who were in need of it
\n\tbut has limited it to the members of the tenant’s family.  Normally
\n\t‘family’ includes parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons or
\n\tdaughters or in some cases widow of a pre-deceased son or the issues
\n\tof the pre-deceased sons but by no stretch of imagination it can be
\n\theld that the distant nephews would be the family members howsoever
\n\tbroad meaning is given to the word “family”.  Hence the
\n\tcontention of the learned Advocate for the appellants cannot be
\n\taccepted that the appellants are the family members of the deceased
\n\tJamnadas who was a tenant of the suit room.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\ttherefore submitted that the Petitioner would not be said to be a
\n\tfamily member which would entitle him to inherentance. He submitted
\n\tthat merely because he was residing there, would not entitle him to
\n\tmake any claim as he has no authority, and therefore, decree passed
\n\tby the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court may not be
\n\tinterfered with. He
\n\ttherefore submitted that the contention about the jurisdiction is
\n\talso not valid as the tenancy rights have been claimed based on
\n\tSection 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act, and therefore,
\n\tthe Court below has considered the aspect about the inheritance as
\n\twell as his status whether he could be said to be a tenant,
\n\tsub-tenant, trespasser, etc., and therefore, this submission is not
\n\tvalid.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the rival submissions, the first contention which is
\n\trequired to be considered is with regard to transmission of a
\n\ttenancy as required under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. Though
\n\tsuch tenancy would be transmitted and it would be inheritable, still
\n\tit will be subject to the provision of law.  It is not in dispute
\n\tthat the Petitioner is not adopted by the deceased tenant.  The
\n\tfactum of his residing for some time would not make him a heir or
\n\tthe family member entitled to inherit under the Rent Act.  There is
\n\tno dispute that the the Full Bench of this Court in case of Babubhai
\n\t@ Jayantilal Kalyanbhai & Ors. (supra) had
\n\tthe occasion to consider this aspect and has also considered with
\n\tregard to inheritance of the tenancy rights and still it has also
\n\tconsidered that it would depend on the facts in the given case.  As
\n\tdiscussed in the judgment of the Full Bench with regard to the
\n\ttenancy rights as heritable and transferable, still there is a
\n\treference to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and it could
\n\tbe as provided under the Transfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAgain,
\n\tfor that purpose, even if it is accepted that the word “family”
\n\tis required to be construed liberally as observed in some of the
\n\tjudgments, the fact remains that the statutory provision of Section
\n\t5(11)(c) of the Rent Act also is required to be considered.  Section
\n\t5(11)(c) of the Rent Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
“5(11)(c)(i)\tin
\n\trelation to premises let for residence, any member of the tenants
\n\tfamily residing with the tenant at the time of or within three
\n\tmonths immediately preceding, the death of the tenant as may be
\n\tdecided in default of agreement  by the Court, and<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tin
\n\trelation to premises let for business, trade or storage, any member
\n\tof the tenant’s family carrying on business, trade or storage with
\n\tthe tenant in the said premises at the time of the death of the
\n\ttenant as may continue, after his death, to carry on the business,
\n\ttrade or storage as the case may be, in the said premises and as may
\n\tbe decided in default of agreement by the Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus,
\n\tit provides that if the premises let out for residence, any member
\n\tof the tenant’s family residing with the tenant at
\n\tthe time or within three months immediately preceding the death of
\n\tthe tenant, can make a claim for tenancy.  Again, whether one is a
\n\tmember of the family of the tenant, can be decided with reference to
\n\tthe interpretation of the word “family”.  It again is
\n\trequired to be considered in background of the other statutory
\n\tprovisions as well as the word “family”.  The word
\n\t“family” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as –
\n\t“1.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tgroup consisting of parents and their children. – Also termed
\n\timmediate family – 2.\n<\/p>\n
\tA group of persons connected by blood, by affinity, or by law. 3.
\n\tA group of persons, us. Relatives, who live
\n\ttogether.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\taspect has been therefore again considered by this Court in case of
\n\tMadhuben
\n\tNatwarlal & Ors. (supra)
\n\tand it has been specifically observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Merely
\n\tbecause the word “common ancestors” is used in the said
\n\tjudgment, it would not mean that distant nephews or cousins should
\n\tbe considered as family members.  By amending Section 5(11)(c), the
\n\tLegislature stepped in and provided a special mode of succession to
\n\tthe tenancy rights or leasehold rights to the extent of
\n\tirremovability from possession to those who were in need of it but
\n\thas limited it to the members of the tenant’<\/p>\n
\ts
\n\tfamily.  Normally ‘family’ includes parents, spouse, brothers,
\n\tsisters, sons or daughters or in some cases widow of a pre-deceased
\n\tson or the issues of the pre-deceased sons but by no stretch of
\n\timagination it can be held that the distant nephews would be the
\n\tfamily members howsoever broad meaning is given to the word
\n\t“family”.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\n\tthis aspect has been considered with reference to Section 5(11)(c)
\n\tof Rent Act and considering the aforesaid specific observations,
\n\twhich have been considered relating to Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent
\n\tAct, it cannot be said that the Petitioner would be covered under
\n\tthe definition of “family” as sought to be canvassed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tanother facet of the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed
\n\tthat the Rent Court had no jurisdiction and the entire decree is
\n\twithout jurisdiction inasmuch as if he was a trespasser, the Civil
\n\tSuit would have been maintainable and not HRP Suit.  The further
\n\tsubmission that the sub-tenancy is not admittedly there, and
\n\ttherefore, the entire decree is without jurisdiction, is also
\n\tmisconceived inasmuch as what has been considered is the right of
\n\ttenancy claimed under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act which has
\n\tbeen discussed, and therefore, the submission is without any merit
\n\tthat the Court below had no jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tlight of the aforesaid discussion, the present Civil Revision
\n\tApplication cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and
\n\taccordingly stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\n\tthe order was dictated, learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed for the
\n\tPetitioner has requested to stay the operation of the order for a
\n\tperiod of six weeks to enable the Petitioner to approach the higher
\n\tforum.  Learned Advocate Mr. Bomi H. Sethna for the Respondent has
\n\tresisted.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\n\tin the facts and circumstances, the request is granted.  The
\n\toperation of the order is hereby stayed for a period of six weeks.\n<\/p>\n
(Rajesh
\nH. Shukla,J)<\/p>\n
Jayanti*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 2011 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/266\/2010 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 266 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters […]<\/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-161014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNotice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-21T07:24:32+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\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T07:24:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1782,\"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\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T07:24:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 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":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-21T07:24:32+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\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T07:24:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011"},"wordCount":1782,"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\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011","name":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs - 3 on 28 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T07:24:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/notice-served-for-respondents-vs-3-on-28-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Notice Served For Respondent(S) vs – 3 on 28 March, 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\/161014","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=161014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}