{"id":174898,"date":"2008-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-22T13:03:41","modified_gmt":"2017-11-22T07:33:41","slug":"atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Anant S. Dave,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCA\/11993\/2008\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\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 11993 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 20353 of 2005\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nATUL\nLIMITED & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nNANAVATI\nASSOCIATES for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMS\nSANGEETA VISHEN AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2, \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned counsel for the parties Mr.K.S.Nanavati, learned Senior
\n\tAdvocate with Mr.Paritosh Calla for the applicants and Ms.Sangeeta
\n\tVishen, learned AGP for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs.Sangeeta Vishen, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for
\n\trespondents.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tapplication is filed by the original applicants for modification of
\n\tthe orders dated 29.12.2005 and 3.2.2006 passed in Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.23591 of 2005 with Special Civil Application No.20353
\n\tof 2005.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe above Special Civil Applications challenge was against
\n\tunilateral cancellation of agreement dated 11.3.2002 by the
\n\trespondents and also to quash and set aside the resolution dated
\n\t30.10.2001 so far as it fixes rates for drawal of water from river
\n\tPar by the applicant-petitioner company.  At the relevant point of
\n\ttime after hearing learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr.
\n\tJustice M.R.Shah passed an interim order dated 29.12.2005, which
\n\treads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Date
\n: 29\/12\/2005 <\/p>\n
ORAL
\nORDER <\/p>\n
\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tTo
\nbe heard with Special Civil Application  No.20353 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHeard
\nthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties in both the
\npetitions with regard to interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBy
\nway of interim relief the recovery of water charges for the period
\nbetween 25.9.2000 to 13.1.2003 at the rate as per the notification
\ndated 30.1.2001 is stayed. So far as recovery of water charges for
\nthe period subsequent to 14.9.2003 at the rate as per notification
\ndated 30.1.2001 is concerned, Shri K.S.Nanavati, learned senior
\nadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that
\nwithout prejudice to their rights and contentions the petitioner
\nwould be depositing amount of Rs.1.00 crore (Rupees One Crore only )
\nwith the respondents within a period of one month from today and
\nfurther amount of Rs.1.00 crore would be paid within a period of six
\nmonths thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tConsidering
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case and considering the financial
\nliabilities and the past dues and considering the above statement,
\nrecovery sought for from the petitioner for the period subsequent to
\n14.1.2003 is stayed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an
\namount of Rs.1.00 crore (Rupees One Crore only ) within a period of
\none month from today and further sum of Rs.1.00 crore be deposited
\nwithin a period of five months thereafter on further condition that
\nthe petitioner company shall file an undertaking that the petitioner
\nwill make the aforesaid amount of Rs.2.00 crores within a stipulated
\ntime as stated above and till the petition is finally heard, decided
\nand disposed of, the petitioner company will not transfer, alienate
\nand \/ or create any charge over the properties of the company.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tSo
\nfar as the period subsequent to September, 2005, for which, Special
\nCivil Application  No.23591 of 2005 is filed is concerned, i.e. for
\nfuture levy, it is directed that without prejudice to their rights
\nand contentions of both the parties, the petitioner shall pay
\nconsumption charges as well as the fixed charges as per the invoice
\nexcept the amount of penalty and interest and for the penalty and
\ninterest, the petitioner shall furnish security. The aforesaid
\narrangement is made till the next date of hearing i.e. 10.1.2006..\n<\/p>\n
\tS.O.\n<\/p>\n
to 10.1.2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[
\nM.R.Shah, J.] <\/p>\n
Later
\n\ton, applicants have filed Civil Application No.102 of 2006 in
\n\tSpecial Civil Application No.23591 of 2005 seeking permission of
\n\tthis Court for creating charge on the properties of the applicants
\n\tand vide order dated 03.02.2006 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R.Shah passed
\n\tthe following order :-\n<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 03\/02\/2006 <\/p>\n
ORAL
\nORDER <\/p>\n
\tRule. Ms.
\n\tSangita Vishen, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the
\n\trespondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard Shri
\n\tK.S.Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioners as well as Shri K.B.Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate
\n\tGeneral appearing on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is an
\n\tapplication submitted by the applicants-original petitioners to
\n\tmodify the order dated 29.12.2005 passed in Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.20353 of 2005 and modify the condition of giving
\n\tundertaking not to create any charge over the properties of the
\n\tcompany.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tK.S.Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\tapplicants-original petitioners has submitted that the
\n\tapplicants-original petitioners have already deposited Rs.1 Crore
\n\tand further sum of Rs.1 Crore is to be deposited within a period of
\n\t5 months as ordered vide order dated 29.12.2005. He has also further
\n\tsubmitted that the applicants’ company is already having assets
\n\tworth Rs.800 Crores upon which there is a charge of Rs.294 Crores
\n\tand the applicants are required to create charge\/s on the said
\n\tproperty in the ordinary course of business. He has also further
\n\tsubmitted that so far as not to transfer and\/or alienate is
\n\tconcerned, the applicants have no difficulty but so far as
\n\tdirections for not creating any charge over the properties of the
\n\tcompany is concerned, for the reasons stated above, the same is
\n\trequired to be modified and therefore, it is requested to modify the
\n\tsaid order to that extent. It is also further submitted by him that
\n\tappropriate condition\/s may be imposed directing the applicants to
\n\tinform this Court by way of affidavit and also informing the
\n\tconcerned department on creating further charge\/s so that if
\n\tultimately the concerned department is to say something against the
\n\tsame and the same can be pointed out.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Trivedi,
\n\tlearned Additional Advocate General has fairly conceded that if the
\n\tinterest of the department is protected and the applicants inform
\n\tthe department with regard to creating further charge\/s in future
\n\tand also file affidavit before this Court before creating the
\n\tcharge\/s, then the order may be modified as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering
\n\tthe above, the order dated 29.12.2005 passed in Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.20353 of 2005 is modified to the extent that the
\n\tapplicants shall file an undertaking as directed by this Court vide
\n\tits order dated 29.12.2005 to the effect that till the petition is
\n\tfinally heard, decided and disposed of, the  company will not
\n\ttransfer and\/or alienate the properties of the company and that they
\n\tare permitted to create charge\/s over the properties of the company
\n\tin ordinary course of business on condition that as and when further
\n\tcharge\/s is\/are created, the petitioners shall file an affidavit
\n\tbefore this Court informing the Court as well as the concerned
\n\tdepartment. Such an undertaking with the Board Resolution be filed
\n\twithin a period of 2 weeks from today. Shri Nanavati, learned senior
\n\tadvocate does not press the prayer in terms of paragraph-7(C) at
\n\tpresent.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule is made
\n\tabsolute to the aforesaid extent, however, there will be no order as
\n\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(M.R.SHAH, J.) <\/p>\n
Pursuant
\n\tto that the company had filed an undertaking that the petitioner
\n\tcompany shall not transfer or alienate the properties of the company
\n\tand accordingly after the above order came to be passed the company
\n\tis paying water charges every month with effect from 25.9.2005.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto the applicant-petitioner company, outstanding dues of Rs.44.60
\n\tcrores is disputed and principal amount of Rs.20 crores is towards
\n\twater charges and Rs.24.6 crores is towards interest and penalty.
\n\tLearned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency
\n\tof the petitions, the petitioner company wants to sale the
\n\tproperties; (1) a residential property at 188, Jorbag, New Delhi and
\n\t(2) open land of 300 acres situated in Valsad district, to meet with
\n\tvarious business requirements.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel for the applicants further submits that the financial
\n\tdetails of the company including the market value of the property as
\n\tper the Government Registered Valuer is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 (a)\tThe Company had fixed
\nassets of Rs.232 crores as on March 31, 2005. The market value of
\nsuch assets was Rs.800 crores.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe value of the fixed
\nassets in the books has gone up to Rs.371 crores as on March 31, 2008
\nas compared to the figure of Rs.232 crores  as on March 31, 2005, an
\nincrease by Rs.139 crores. The market value of these assets is
\nRs.1274.94 crores.  The copy of the Valuation Report given by the
\ngovernment Registered Valuer is annexed hereto and marked as
\nAnnexure-V.  Brief details of the market value of the fixed assets
\nare summarized as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Sr.No.\n<\/p>\n
Fixed Asset<\/p>\n
Market value <\/p>\n
Rs.Crores<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Land at Valsad<\/p>\n
 436.48<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Residential Property at Jorbagh, New Delhi<\/p>\n
  44.50<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Commercial property at Dadar Mumbai<\/p>\n
  51.50<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Residential flats at Mumbai<\/p>\n
   4.30<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Commercial property at Ahmedabad<\/p>\n
   1.00<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
Commercial property at Ahmedabad<\/p>\n
   0.79<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
Industrial plot at Ankleshwar<\/p>\n
  24.00<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
Colony land at Ankleshwar<\/p>\n
   2.75<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
Industrial plot at Ankleshwar<\/p>\n
  33.86<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Factory land at Tarapur<\/p>\n
   1.76<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
Buildings<\/p>\n
 184.00<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
Plant and Machinery<\/p>\n
 490.00<\/p>\n
Total<\/p>\n
1274.90<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel for the applicants submits that additional affidavit is also
\n\tplaced on record showing the details of the properties on which the
\n\trespondent may create its exclusive first charge as per the
\n\tdirections of this Court.  The above affidavit is filed by the
\n\tManager Secretarial & Legal and according to the affidavit
\n\tproperties shown in para 4 of the additional affidavit (the details
\n\tof which are as under) are available for creating charge.  The above
\n\tcharge will be as such sufficient against the outstanding dues of
\n\tRs.58.00 crores approximately towards outstanding dues to the
\n\tGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
i)
\nCommercial Property @310-B Veer Savarkar\tRs.51.50 crores<\/p>\n
   Marg,
\nNr.Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange, <\/p>\n
   Dadar
\n(West), Mumbai (Ground+5 floors)<\/p>\n
ii)Commercial
\nproperty at 101, First Floor\tRs. 1.00 crores<\/p>\n
   A-Wing,
\nHeritage, 7, Alkapuri Society<\/p>\n
   Nr.Gujarat
\nVidyapith, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
Considering
\n\tthe above aspects, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
\n\tapplicants  to release them from undertaking which filed by them and
\n\tpermit them to sell the properties narrated in para 2 of the
\n\tapplication  and prayer made terms of para 22(a) may be granted.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.Sangeeta
\n\tVishen, learned AGP, however submits that creating of charge of the
\n\ttwo commercial properties situated in Mumbai and Ahmedabad and
\n\tconsidering their market value, the same is not sufficient to met
\n\twith the outstanding dues of Rs.58.00 crores approximately and some
\n\tadditional securities is to be furnished by the applicants and
\n\tsuitable directions can be given accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Having
\n\theard learned counsel for the parties and considering the overall
\n\tfacts and circumstances of the case  and the dues outstanding to the
\n\tGovernment of Rs.58.00 crores, out of which principal amount due to
\n\tthe Government is Rs.19.85 crores and penalty is Rs.8.59 crores and
\n\tinterest is about Rs.29.56 crores, creation of first charge on the
\n\tcommercial properties situated at Mumbai and Ahmedabad as narrated
\n\tin para 4 of the additional affidavit dated 15.10.2008 will meet
\n\twith at least 90% of the total outstanding dues and will be more
\n\tthan double than the principal amount.  Besides, applicant herein
\n\tcontinued to pay the current and regular charges for consumption of
\n\twater and there is no breach of any of the terms and conditions of
\n\tthe undertaking.  The requirement of the applicants for selling the
\n\tproperties as stated in para 2 is not doubted by the respondents.
\n\tBesides, fixed assets as shown in para 16 in a tabular form by the
\n\tapplicants also indicate some other properties including plant and
\n\tmachinery worth Rs.900 crores.  The above properties are also part
\n\tof the undertaking filed by the applicants on earlier occasion that
\n\twithout permission\/leave granted by this Court, the properties are
\n\tnot to be disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
Considering
\n\tthe above aspects of the matter, since the interest of the
\n\trespondents is adequately protected, after creating first charge in
\n\tfavour of the respondents over the properties viz. (i) Commercial
\n\tProperty @310-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Prabhadevi Telehpone
\n\tExchange, Dadar (West), Mumbai (Ground + 5 floors) : Rs.51.50 crores
\n\tand (ii) Commercial Property at 101, First Floor, A-Wing, Heritage,
\n\t7, Alkapuri Society, Nr.Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad : Rs.1.00
\n\tCrore, I am inclined to grant applicants-petitioners company to sale
\n\tthe properties of the applicants viz. (1) a residential property at
\n\t188, Jorbag, New Delhi and (2) open land of 300 acres situated in
\n\tValsad district.  Accordingly, this Civil Application is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Rule
\n\tis made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.\n<\/p>\n
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) <\/p>\n
*pvv<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CA\/11993\/2008 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR ORDERS No. 11993 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20353 of 2005 ========================================================= ATUL LIMITED & 1 […]<\/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-174898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAtul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - 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\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-22T07:33:41+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\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T07:33:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1947,\"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\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T07:33:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Atul vs State on 17 November, 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":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - 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\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-22T07:33:41+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\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T07:33:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008"},"wordCount":1947,"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\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008","name":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T07:33:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/atul-vs-state-on-17-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Atul vs State on 17 November, 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\/174898","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=174898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}