{"id":176488,"date":"2008-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-16T07:59:11","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T02:29:11","slug":"apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.N.Devani,&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\nCR.MA\/4423\/2006\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 4423 of 2006\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n\n\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 \n\nAPOORVA\nSHANTILAL SHAH & 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTEEL\nAUTHORITY OF INDIA A COMPANY & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nMEGHA JANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR BN PATEL for Respondent(s)\n: 1 - 2. \nMR MR MENGDEY, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s)\n: 3, \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\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tapplicants herein have moved the present application praying to take
\n\tnote of the offences committed by the respondents No.1 and 2 under
\n\tSection 200 read with Section 193 read with Section 196 of the
\n\tIndian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 195 of the Code of
\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), and to direct the Registry to
\n\tfile a complaint with respect to the said offences against the
\n\trespondents No.1 and 2 in the appropriate Court of Metropolitan
\n\tMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.1 herein
\n\thad lodged several complaints in the Court of the learned
\n\tMetropolitan Magistrate, at Ahmedabad against the applicants for
\n\tdishonour of certain cheques.  The applicants herein had approached
\n\tthis Court under Section 482 of the Code read with Articles 226 and
\n\t227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the said
\n\tcomplaints.  In the said Special Criminal Applications, the
\n\tapplicants had filed an affidavit in support of their application on
\n\t17th March, 1998.  In reply thereto, the respondent No.2
\n\t?  Branch Manager of the respondent No.1, Steel Authority of India,
\n\thad filed an affidavit in-reply.  According to the applicants, in
\n\tthe said affidavit in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 on behalf
\n\tof the respondent No.1, certain false statements have been made on
\n\toath.  It is the case of the applicants that the respondents No.1
\n\tand 2 had intentionally given false evidence in the pending Special
\n\tCriminal Applications before this Court and had corruptly used or
\n\tattempted to use as true declaration knowing the same to be false.
\n\tAccording to the applicants, if such false statements had not been
\n\tmade by the respondent No.2, the applicants would have been able to
\n\testablish and demonstrate before this Court that nothing is due and
\n\tpayable by the applicants to the respondent No.1, which would
\n\tprobably have resulted in quashing the complaint.  It is,
\n\taccordingly, the case of the applicants that the respondents have
\n\tcommitted an offence punishable under Section 193 read with Section
\n\t196 and 200 of the IPC, hence, the applicants have moved the present
\n\tapplication praying for the reliefs noted hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMs.Megha Jani, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr.B.N.Patel,
\n\tlearned advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.M.R.Mengdey,
\n\tlearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3 ?  State
\n\tof Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.Megha
\n\tJani, learned advocate for the applicants has drawn the attention of
\n\tthe Court to the affidavit in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 in
\n\tSpecial Criminal Application No.1066 of 1997.  It is contended that,
\n\tin the said affidavit, the following statements are false to the
\n\tknowledge of the respondents No.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
?S[1]\tStatement
\non para (8) page (6) of the said affidavit :\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis categorically stated that the Respondent No.1 has paid excise duty
\nwhatever required under law for the materials supplied to the
\nPetitioner No.1.\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tStatement
\non para (8) page (6) of the said affidavit :\n<\/p>\n
\tAll
\nnecessary particulars with necessary documents are supplied by the
\nRespondent No.1 to the Petitioner No.1.\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tStatement
\non para (8) page (7) of the said affidavit :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\norder as per Annexure II collectively, which appears to have been
\npassed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division VI,
\nAhmedabad on 23rd January 1998 appears to have been made
\nfor want of proper contest by the Petitioner No.1.\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tStatement
\non para (8) page (7) of the said affidavit :\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis also stated that though the particulars regarding payment of
\nExcise Duty were supplied to the Petitioner No.1 company …..\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tStatement
\non para (8) page (7) of the said affidavit :\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nappears that the management of the Petitioner No.1 has intentionally
\ncreated this situation so as to create a defence.  But, in fact, the
\nExcise Duty is paid and the respondent No.1 would supply the details
\nagain.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas the first statement is concerned, it is contended that the
\n\trespondent No.1 had passed on the Modvat credit to the applicants
\n\twithout giving proper documents evidencing payment of Excise Duty
\n\tand have not taken proper care to see that their invoices bear
\n\tparticulars regarding payment of Excise Duty.  As a result, such
\n\tinvoices were not defaced by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent
\n\twith the words ?SModvat credit allowed?? during the monthly
\n\tassessment of the applicants for availment of Modvat credit.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards the second statement, it is submitted that the said
\n\tstatement is far from the truth because, as stated by the Assistant
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Division VI, Ahmedabad, in paragraph
\n\tNo.2 on page 5 of the order dated 23rd January, 1998,
\n\t?SNow I am of the view that if the goods were cleared on payment
\n\tof Excise Duty by SAIL Bokaro, it was required to be established by
\n\tthe assessee.  Till date, the party could not furnish any details
\n\tduly certified by the Central Excise office having jurisdiction of
\n\tBokaro Steel Plant confirming the details of duty payment.??\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis pointed out that though the respondent No.1 has been given 7 days
\n\ttime to determine duty and debit the account on day-to-day basis, it
\n\thas not been exempted to show the debit particulars on the invoices
\n\traised by them at a later stage.  In actual fact, no such documents
\n\tas required by law have been supplied by respondent No.1 inspite of
\n\trepeated efforts made by the applicants in this regard by writing
\n\tletters to the Branch Manager at Ahmedabad on 21st
\n\tDecember, 1995, 2nd January 1996, 8th January
\n\t1996, 6th June, 1996, 12th June 1996 and 8th
\n\tMay 1997.  It is accordingly submitted that the aforesaid
\n\tstatements, whereby it is stated that all necessary particulars and
\n\tdocuments are supplied to the applicant No.1 are false.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards the third statement, it is submitted that the said statement
\n\tis false because there could not have been an appropriate contest in
\n\tabsence of appropriate duty paying documents with authenticity
\n\tregarding the payment of Central Excise Duty on goods covered under
\n\tthe invoices in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards the fourth statement, it is submitted that the said
\n\tstatement is false because though the respondent No.1 had supplied
\n\tdata regarding debit entry numbers and dates, the same was found to
\n\tbe irrelevant as part of it related to materials not purchased by
\n\tthe applicants.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards the fifth statement, it is submitted that the said statement
\n\tis false because the root cause for the Excise Department to raise
\n\tdemand and then confirm the same was due to failure on the part of
\n\tthe respondent No.1 to provide the applicants with duplicate copies
\n\tof the invoices on which the appropriate payment of Excise Duty was
\n\tindicated.  It is submitted that the averment that the respondent
\n\tNo.1 would supply the details again is false as when they have not
\n\tsupplied the details in the first instance, there is no question of
\n\tsupplying the same again.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted that the respondent No.2 who has filed the affidavit
\n\twas responsible as Branch Manager at the relevant time and being
\n\taware of the facts of the case, he has irresponsibly filed an
\n\taffidavit making false statements on oath, hence, the complaint
\n\tshould also be filed against him.  It is submitted that the
\n\taffidavits in which the false statements were made were filed in
\n\tSpecial Criminal Applications No.1066 of 1997 to 1077 of 1997 and
\n\tNo.1167 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned advocate for the applicants has, accordingly, submitted that
\n\tin view of the false statements made on oath by the respondent No.2
\n\ton behalf of respondent No.1, both the respondents are required to
\n\tbe prosecuted for the offences under Sections 200 read with Section
\n\t193 read with Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
\n\t195 of the Code, and has urged that this Court may direct the
\n\tRegistry to file a complaint in respect of the said offences against
\n\tthe respondents No.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned advocate for the applicants has, on the question of
\n\tlimitation, submitted that no limitation is provided for the Court
\n\tto initiate the proceedings under Section 195 of the Code.  It is
\n\tsubmitted that the provisions of Section 468 of the Code would not
\n\tbe applicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, Mr.B.N.Patel, learned advocate for the respondents
\n\tNo.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the application.  It is denied
\n\tthat the statements made in the affidavit filed by the respondent
\n\tNo.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 are in any manner false, as
\n\talleged. It is submitted that the application is not maintainable at
\n\tlaw because the Company in question namely, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.
\n\twhich is now being wound up, had filed Criminal Miscellaneous
\n\tApplication No.1310 of 2000 before the winding up in respect of the
\n\tsame cause of action based on the same facts and praying for the
\n\tsame relief, which is still pending.    That, it is only because the
\n\tapplicants who have lost control over the affairs of the said
\n\tCompany, being under the impression that the Official Liquidator may
\n\tnot prosecute the said application any further, have filed the
\n\tpresent application in the name of the Company, as a counter-blast
\n\tto create a defence in the criminal prosecution faced by them in
\n\tCriminal Cases No.3090 to 3101 of 1997 and 4140 of 1997 pending in
\n\tthe Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Court
\n\tNo.9) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\t learned advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 has strongly urged
\n\tthat the present application is not maintainable as being
\n\ttime-barred and also as having been made on the same facts and cause
\n\tof action, and for the same relief as in the pending Criminal
\n\tMiscellaneous Application No.1310 of 2000.  It is pointed out that
\n\tthe present application is filed after a period of eight years,
\n\twhich is much beyond the statutory period of limitation, and as
\n\tsuch, is not maintainable as being time barred.   The  learned
\n\tadvocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 has drawn the attention of
\n\tthe Court to Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, to
\n\tpoint out that where no limitation is provided for making an
\n\tapplication, the period of limitation prescribed is three years.  It
\n\tis, accordingly, submitted that the present application which is
\n\tfiled after eight years is hopelessly time-barred.  It is submitted
\n\tthat, the right to apply for prosecuting the present application
\n\twould have accrued as soon as the affidavit in-reply was filed.
\n\tThat even from the date of the affidavit in-reply, a period of eight
\n\tyears has elapsed.  Hence, the application being hopelessly
\n\ttime-barred, is required to be rejected on that count alone.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tmerits of the case, it is submitted that the respondent No.2 herein
\n\thas not made any false statements on oath in the affidavit in-reply.
\n\t Referring to the statements on oath in the affidavit in-reply, it
\n\tis submitted that, in fact, the excise duty in question was fully
\n\tpaid by the respondent No.1 Company and the details of the same were
\n\tsupplied to the buyer i.e. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., and that, no
\n\tfalse statement had been made by the respondent No.2 in the
\n\taffidavit in-reply filed in 1998 in the earlier proceedings.
\n\tAttention of the Court is drawn to the order in original dated 23rd
\n\tJanuary, 1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise,
\n\tDivision VI, Ahmedabad against M\/s Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., and
\n\tmore particularly, to the contents of page 8 thereof, to point out
\n\tthat it is recorded therein that the assessee had given a written
\n\tsubmission along with xerox copy of the permission whereby Bokaro
\n\tSteel Plant is exempted from making debit entries within 7 days of
\n\tthe removal of the goods and also submitted invoice-wise debit entry
\n\tnumbers duly certified by SAIL, Bokaro Steel plant.  It is submitted
\n\tthat without supply of the documents and details, the representative
\n\tof Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. could not have produced invoice-wise
\n\tdebit entry numbers duly certified by SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant.  It
\n\tis, accordingly, urged that, no false statement has been made as
\n\talleged in the application.  It is further pointed out that the
\n\tletter dated 5th March, 1998, Annexure ?SJ?? to the
\n\tapplication, written by the respondent No.1 to the Superintendent,
\n\tCentral Excise, Range IX, Division VI, Ahmedabad, clearly shows that
\n\tthe payment of excise duty and details were duly verified by the
\n\tPlant Excise Superintendent. The learned advocate for the
\n\trespondents No.1 and 2 has, accordingly, submitted that none of the
\n\tstatements made in the affidavits filed by the respondent No.2 were
\n\tfalse to the knowledge of the respondents.  Hence, the application
\n\tbeing devoid of merit deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
\n\tadvocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe background of the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that
\n\tthe main grievance raised in the application is to the effect that
\n\tcertain statements made in the affidavit in-reply filed by the
\n\trespondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 in the Special Criminal
\n\tApplications filed by the applicants, were false to the knowledge of
\n\tthe respondents No.1 and 2.  The statements which are alleged to be
\n\tfalse have been re-produced hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset it may be pertinent to examine each of the aforesaid
\n\tstatements independently.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfirst statement is to the effect that the respondent No.1 has paid
\n\texcise duty whatever required under law for the materials supplied
\n\tto the petitioner No.1. In this context it would be relevant to
\n\trefer to order of the adjudicating authority and more particularly
\n\tto the following part of the defence of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. to
\n\tthe show cause notice issued against it :\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\n\tinvoices issued under Rule 52 A by Bokaro Steel Plant or SAIL
\n\tcontain the particulars regarding the amount of Central Excise duty
\n\tpaid on the goods supplied under the respective invoices. The
\n\tassessee takes Modvat credit of C.Ex. duty based on such duty paying
\n\tdocuments issued by the SAIL which is GOI undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tinvoices issued under Rule 57 GG issued by the SAIL?”s stockyard at
\n\tKaligam give cross reference of the invoices issued under Rule 52 A
\n\treceived by the stockyard from the SAIL?”s steel plant and also
\n\tgive the particulars of the amount of C.Ex. duty paid by the Steel
\n\tplant of SAIL on the goods supplied by the stockyard. Thus the
\n\tinvoices under rule 52A or 57GG received from SAIL?”s Steel Plant
\n\tat Bokaro and stockyard at Kaligam respectively do show that the
\n\tgoods supplied under them were clearly Central Excise duty paid
\n\tgoods and therefore the assessee was and is entitled to take Modvat
\n\tCredit on the basis of such documents evidencing payment of Central
\n\tExcise duty.??\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe aforesaid defence raised by Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. before the
\n\tadjudicating authority, it is apparent that it was the case of
\n\tGujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. itself that the goods supplied to Gujarat
\n\tSteel Tubes Ltd. were Central Excise duty paid goods. In the
\n\tcircumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement that
\n\tthe respondent No.1 has paid excise duty as required under law in
\n\trespect of the materials supplied to the Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tsecond statement is to the effect that all necessary particulars
\n\twith necessary documents are supplied by the respondent No.1 to the
\n\tpetitioner No.1 i.e. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.  In this context also
\n\tit would be pertinent to refer to the end of the defence version
\n\trecorded by the adjudicating authority, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?SShri
\nM.N. Shah appeared and gave written submission along with Xerox
\ncopies of the permission whereby Bokaro Steel Plant is exempted from
\nmaking entry within 7 days of the removal of the goods and also
\nsubmitted invoice-wise debit entry nos. duly certified by SAIL,
\nBokaro Steel Plant.??\n<\/p>\n
It
\nis evident that without supply of documents and details the
\nrepresentative of Gujarat Steel Tubes could not have produced
\ninvoice-wise debit entry nos. duly certified by SAIL Bokaro Steel
\nPlant.  It is the specific case of the respondents that the
\nrequirement was to mention details of the debit entries etc. on the
\ninvoice which were supplied later, in view of permissions granted in
\ntheir favour by the Central Excise authorities whereby the
\nrespondents were permitted not to mention debit entry no. at the time
\nof issuing invoices, but to determine duty and debit the account
\ncurrent on day to day basis within 7 days of actual removal of goods.
\nIn the light of the aforesaid facts, it is not possible to hold that
\nthe aforesaid statement made by the respondents is false to their
\nknowledge as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas the third and fifth statements are concerned, the same are only
\n\texpressions of opinion, and can in no manner be said to amount to an
\n\toffence under sections 193 read with sections 196 and 200 of the
\n\tIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfourth statement whereby it has been stated that ?Sthough the
\n\tparticulars regarding payment of Excise Duty were supplied to the
\n\tpetitioner No.1 company??? is interconnected with the first
\n\tand second statements, hence, as a necessary corollary the said
\n\tstatement also cannot be said to be false to the knowledge of the
\n\trespondents.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above discussion as well as considering the submissions
\n\tadvanced by the learned advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2,
\n\twhereby the learned advocate has successfully pointed out that the
\n\tsaid statements are based upon the documents on record, none of the
\n\tstatements made in the affidavit can be said to be in any manner
\n\tfalse.  It may be that the said statements have been read by the
\n\tapplicants in a different manner, however, that by itself, would not
\n\tmake the said statements false, as alleged.  In such an application
\n\twhereby the applicants seek a direction against the Registry of the
\n\tHigh Court to prosecute the respondents No.1 and 2 for the offences
\n\tunder Sections 200, 193 read with Section 196 of the IPC, the
\n\tfalsity of  all the statements should be apparent on the face of the
\n\trecord.  Considering the allegations made in the application in the
\n\tlight of the explanation tendered by the respondent, it is not
\n\tpossible to state that any false statement has been made as alleged,
\n\tas the same would fall within the realm of disputed questions of
\n\tfact. The relief claimed in the application can be granted only if
\n\ton the basis of the record of the case, the Court finds that a false
\n\tstatement has been made which to the knowledge of the deponent was
\n\tfalse. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not
\n\tpossible to state that any of the statements that are alleged to be
\n\tfalse, are borne out to be false from the record. Hence, no case is
\n\tmade out to initiate any criminal proceedings against the
\n\trespondents as prayed for in the application.\n<\/p>\n
Besides,
\n\tthe learned advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 is justified in
\n\tcontending that the present application, which is filed after a
\n\tdelay of eight years from the date of the said affidavit in-reply,
\n\tis also hopelessly time-barred.  Any application other than those
\n\tfor which a specific period has been prescribed under the Limitation
\n\tAct, would be governed by the provisions of Article 137 of the
\n\tSchedule to the Limitation Act, which prescribes that in case where
\n\tno period of limitation is prescribed, the period of limitation
\n\twould be three years.  Hence, apart from the merits of the case, the
\n\tapplication is also time barred.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the application being devoid of any merit or
\n\tsubstance, does not merit acceptance, and is, accordingly, rejected.
\n\t Notice is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008 Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/4423\/2006 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4423 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-176488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nApoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 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\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-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=\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T02:29:11+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T02:29:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3216,\"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\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T02:29:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 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\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T02:29:11+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T02:29:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008"},"wordCount":3216,"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\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008","name":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T02:29:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apoorva-vs-steel-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Apoorva vs Steel on 6 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:\/\/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\/176488","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=176488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}