{"id":176604,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-08T23:31:42","modified_gmt":"2017-12-08T18:01:42","slug":"gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCA\/232\/2010\t 10\/ 10\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 CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 232 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 457 of 2005\n \n\nwith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1733 OF 2005\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGSRTC\n- Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMKISHAN\nBISHAMBHAR DUBEY &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMITUL K SHELAT for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. Darji for learned Advocate Mr. Mitul K.Shelat<br \/>\n\tfor applicant GSRTC.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tapplication is filed by applicant with a prayer to condone delay in<br \/>\n\tfiling first appeal in respect to an award passed by claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal, Gandhidham-Kachchh in claim petition no. 1573 of 1999<br \/>\n\tdated 5th October, 2004. Claim petition was filed by<br \/>\n\tclaimants claiming Rs.4,00,000.00 for death of deceased Sharad<br \/>\n\tRamkishan Dubey caused in the vehicular accident dated 4.11.1993.<br \/>\n\tApplicant NO.1 is father of said deceased and applicant no.2 is<br \/>\n\tmother of deceased. Opponent NO.1 is driver of ST Bus bearing<br \/>\n\tregistration No. GJ.1.Z.2547 involved in accident. Opponent NO.2 is<br \/>\n\tST Corporation, an owner of bus involved in accident. Deceased<br \/>\n\tSharad was driving auto rickshaw No. GTY-9103 at a moderate speed<br \/>\n\tand on the correct side of the road at about 2350 hours on<br \/>\n\t4.11.1993. When deceased reached near Fun and Food Restaurant on<br \/>\n\tHighway leading from Gandhidham to Adipur, at that time, opponent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 was coming from opposite direction driving ST Bus No.<br \/>\n\tGJ.1.Z.2547 at an excessive speed and was driving said bus rashly<br \/>\n\tand negligently so as to endanger human life. It was also alleged by<br \/>\n\tclaimants before claims tribunal that due to rash and negligent<br \/>\n\tdriving on the part of the opponent no.1, ST Bus dashed with auto<br \/>\n\trickshaw and ran over auto rickshaw and crushed auto rickshaw. That<br \/>\n\tdue to said vehicular accident, deceased Sharad Dubey and other<br \/>\n\tpassengers traveling in said auto rickshaw had sustained serious<br \/>\n\tbodily injuries and were removed to hospital. Deceased Sharad<br \/>\n\tRamkishan Dubey ultimately succumbed to injuries sustained by him in<br \/>\n\tthe vehicular accident. It was case of claimants before claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal that deceased Sharad was aged about 22 years on date of<br \/>\n\taccident earning Rs.2,500.00 per month.  Therefore, said claim<br \/>\n\tpetition was filed by claimants claiming compensation of<br \/>\n\tRs.9,30,000.00 but restricted their claim to Rs.4,00,000.00.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal, ST Corporation filed written statement at Exh. 25<br \/>\n\tand denied averments made by claimants in their claim petition.<br \/>\n\tOccurrence of accident, date of accident, place of accident and time<br \/>\n\tof accident were denied. Involvement of ST Bus was also denied by<br \/>\n\topponents. It was denied that in said vehicular accident, deceased<br \/>\n\tSharad sustained serious bodily injuries and ultimately succumbed to<br \/>\n\tinjuries sustained by him. Averments as regards age and income of<br \/>\n\tdeceased on the date of accident were denied. It was contended that<br \/>\n\tin fact, accident occurred due to sheer negligence on the part of<br \/>\n\tdeceased and, therefore, claimants are not entitled to any<br \/>\n\tcompensation from opponents. It was also contended that ST Bus was<br \/>\n\tpassing on road at a moderate speed and on correct side of road but<br \/>\n\tall of sudden, deceased came on road with his auto rickshaw rashly<br \/>\n\tand negligently and, therefore, accident could not be avoided and<br \/>\n\tthus accident was a result of sheer negligence on the part of<br \/>\n\tdeceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>Claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal framed issues at Exh.23. Claimants produced copy of<br \/>\n\tpanchanama at Exh. 50, copy of FIR at Exh. 51, copy of PM Report at<br \/>\n\tExh. 49, copy of charge sheet at Exh. 52, copy of receipt issued by<br \/>\n\tTolani Foundation, Gandhidham Polytechnic at Exh. 53. Applicant No.1<br \/>\n\tRamkishan Bishambhar Dubey filed his affidavit of evidence at Exh.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t41. He was cross examined by advocate for present appellants before<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal. On behalf of opponents, witness Janak Dhanjibhai<br \/>\n\tThacker is examined at Exh. 57. Thereafter, written arguments on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of applicants were submitted before claims tribunal at Exh.<br \/>\n\t60 and written arguments on behalf of opponents were submitted at<br \/>\n\tExh. 59. Claims tribunal has considered question of  negligence<br \/>\n\twhile considering evidence on record produced by both parties. FIR<br \/>\n\twas lodged against opponent no.1 ST Bus Driver. After police<br \/>\n\tinvestigation, charge sheet was also served to ST Bus Driver,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, claims tribunal has come to conclusion that accident<br \/>\n\toccurred due to sheer negligence of ST Bus Driver. Claims tribunal<br \/>\n\thas also considered one fact that admittedly, vehicular accident<br \/>\n\toccurred near Fun &amp; Food Restaurant and, therefore, principle of<br \/>\n\tres ipsa loquitor is applied. Claims tribunal has observed that when<br \/>\n\theavy vehicles are passing through city area, they are supposed<br \/>\n\ttoslow down the speed of vehicle. After perusing panchanama, claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal observed that it appears that the rickshaw was crushed<br \/>\n\tunder ST Bus and, therefore, speed of ST Bus can be estimated. If<br \/>\n\tthe bus was driven at moderate speed, then in the accident, the auto<br \/>\n\trickshaw would not have beencrushed, therefore, it apepars that ST<br \/>\n\tBus was passing through city area at very high speed and, therefore,<br \/>\n\taccident occurred due to sheer negligence on the part of ST Driver<br \/>\n\topponent no.1. Therefore, considering these findings given by claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal supported by evidence on record, contention raised by<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate for appellant cannot be accepted that the question<br \/>\n\tof negligence has been decided erroneously by claims tribunal.<br \/>\n\tAnother contention raised by appellant is about rick shaw driver not<br \/>\n\thaving valid licence. That contention was not raised by appellant<br \/>\n\tbefore claims tribunal. Therefore, it being contention raised before<br \/>\n\tthis court for the first time by appellant, cannot be entertained by<br \/>\n\tthis court in light of recent decision of apex court reported in<br \/>\n\t2010 AIR SCW page 165, para 17, 18 and 20. There is no contention<br \/>\n\traised by learned advocate for appellant about quantum of<br \/>\n\tcompensation worked out by claims tribunal, therefore, according to<br \/>\n\tmy opinion, looking to age of deceased 22 years and income which has<br \/>\n\tbeen assessed by claims tribunal at Rs.1500.00, after deducting<br \/>\n\t1\/3rd therefrom, it comes to Rs.1000.00 dependency and<br \/>\n\tmultiplier of 15 rightly applied by claims tribunal and amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.20,000.00 is also rightly awarded by claims tribunal towards<br \/>\n\tconvention. For that, claims tribunal has not committed any error.<br \/>\n\tAmount of compensation worked out by claims tribunal is just, proper<br \/>\n\tand reasonable which cannot be considered tobe on higher side. In<br \/>\n\tlight of this reasoning given by claims tribunal, as no contention<br \/>\n\tis raised by appellant before claims tribunal in respect to fact<br \/>\n\tthat deceased was not having valid licence, contentions raised by<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate for appellant before this court cannot be accepted.<br \/>\n\tHowever, it is necessary to note that award was passed by claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal on 5th October, 2004 and First Appeal (Stamp<br \/>\n\tNumber) No. 457 of 2005 was filed but not moved or circulated by<br \/>\n\tappellant corporation for about more than four years and it remained<br \/>\n\tpending as office objection raised was not removed by appellant for<br \/>\n\tsuch a long period. Therefore, considering all these aspects, delay<br \/>\n\toccurred in filing of an appeal cannot be condoned. In civil<br \/>\n\tapplication for condonation of delay, applicant has not explained by<br \/>\n\tappellant, why this delay has occurred in filing of an appeal. No<br \/>\n\tsufficient cause is shown by applicant for delay in filing of an<br \/>\n\tappeal, to satisfaction of this court. There is no affidavit of any<br \/>\n\tauthorized officer in present application. Even advocate for<br \/>\n\tappellant has also not signed application and, therefore, in light<br \/>\n\tof this lethargic approach made by appellant present applicant and<br \/>\n\talso since no exact days of delay has been pointed out by applicant<br \/>\n\tin this application, merely mentioned that delay is caused in filing<br \/>\n\tof appeal on administrative procedure involved in processing<br \/>\n\tdecision regarding filing of appeal without any further details or<br \/>\n\taffidavit, such application cannot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\taspect has been considered by Jammu &amp; Kashmir High Court in case<br \/>\n\tof Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus S.D.Sahare and others, 2008<br \/>\n\tACJ 1327. Relevant Head Note is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> Motor<br \/>\n\tVehicles Act, 1988, section 173 (1), second Proviso- Appeal<br \/>\n\tCondonation of delay   sufficient cause   delay of 408 days in<br \/>\n\tfiling appeals   Insurance company seeks condonation of delay on<br \/>\n\tthe ground that certified copy of order was supplied late and the<br \/>\n\tfile when sent to Regional Office for legal opinion was misplaced<br \/>\n\tInsurance company did not place any material on record on the basis<br \/>\n\twhereof it may be said that it had all along been aware that it had<br \/>\n\tto file the appeals within a prescribed period of limitation and it<br \/>\n\thad taken requisite steps toe xpedite the reconstruction of records<br \/>\n\twhich are stated to have been lost in transit and despite taking all<br \/>\n\tsteps it had been disabled because of some reasons to file the<br \/>\n\tappeal within limitation   Whether there is sufficient cause to<br \/>\n\tcondone the delay in filing appeals   Held:No; appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\taspect has also been examined by Delhi High Court in VK Thukral &amp;<br \/>\n\tOthers v. Lalit and others, reported in 2006 ACJ 2440. Relevant head<br \/>\n\tnote is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> Motor<br \/>\n\tVehicles Act, 1988, section 173   Appeal   Condonation of delay<br \/>\n\t  Sufficient cause   Delay of 416 days in filing appeal by owner<br \/>\n\tof vehicle   Owner stated that he was proceeded against ex parte<br \/>\n\tas his counsel stopped appearance and he came to know of the award<br \/>\n\twhen he received notice of execution. &#8211; He engaged another counsel<br \/>\n\twho filed objectionj in execution proceedings which were dismissed<br \/>\n\tand he was advised to file an appeal   Owner took more than 3<br \/>\n\tmonths to applied for a copy of award and no cause has been shown<br \/>\n\twhy the appeal was not promptly filed after dismissal of objection<br \/>\n\tWhether the delay in filing appeal is condonable   Held: no.\n<\/p>\n<p>Recently,<br \/>\n\tapex court has also examined question of delay of 2381 days in<br \/>\n\tfiling of an appeal, in case of Katari Suryanarayana &amp; Ors. v.<br \/>\n\tKoppisetti Subbarao &amp; Ors., reported in 2009(3) GLR page 2637.<br \/>\n\tApplication for bringing legal heirs of original plaintiffs on<br \/>\n\trecord was filed after long delay of 2381 days. Parties to suit were<br \/>\n\tneighbors and appellants would have known about death of two<br \/>\n\tplaintiffs. Court found that it is difficult to conceive that<br \/>\n\tpetitioners were not in touch with their Advocates from 1999 to<br \/>\n\tDecember, 2006. In such circumstances, order of High Court refusing<br \/>\n\tto condone delay is uphepd by apex court in aforesaid decision.<br \/>\n\tRelevant observations made by apex court in para 12 of said decision<br \/>\n\tare quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.\tIt<br \/>\n\tis not in dispute that the appellants were neighbours. They were<br \/>\n\tco-sharers. The respective dates of death of the respondent Nos.2<br \/>\n\tand 3, thus, were known to them. It is difficult to conceive that<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners were not in touch wi8th their learned Advocates from<br \/>\n\t1999 to December, 2006. If not every week, they were expected to<br \/>\n\tcontact their lawyers once in a year. Ignorance of legal consequence<br \/>\n\twithout something more would, in our opinion, be not sufficient to<br \/>\n\tcondone such a huge delay. Appellants are literates. They have been<br \/>\n\tfighting their cases for along time.The High Court in its impugned<br \/>\n\tjudgment has categorically arrived at a finding that no sufficient<br \/>\n\tcause has been shown for the purpose of condonation of delay in<br \/>\n\tbringing on record the names of the heirs or legal representatives<br \/>\n\tof the deceased respondent No. 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tconsidering aforesaid decisions in light of facts of present case,<br \/>\n\tthere is no merits in appeal and no sufficient cause is shown by<br \/>\n\tapplicant  for condoning delay in filing of appeal and, therefore,<br \/>\n\tapplication for condonation of delay is required to be dismissed.<br \/>\n\tObject of condonation of delay is that the party may not be deprived<br \/>\n\tof his right to get matter decided on merits. Here, in case before<br \/>\n\thand, while considering an application for condonation of delay,<br \/>\n\tthis court has also considered award made by claims tribunal and<br \/>\n\tmerits of matter and this court is of view that no useful purpose is<br \/>\n\tgoing to be served even if delay in filing of an appeal is condoned<br \/>\n\tbecause there is no substance in appeal and, therefore, since merits<br \/>\n\tof matter has also been examined, it cannot be said that refusal to<br \/>\n\tcondone delay would deprive appellant of his right to get matter<br \/>\n\tdecided on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>For<br \/>\n\treasons recorded above, this application for condonation of delay is<br \/>\n\tdismissed. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant also stands<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication for stay filed by appellant also stands dismissed<br \/>\n\taccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CA\/232\/2010 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION &#8211; FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 232 of 2010 In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 457 of 2005 with CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-08T18:01:42+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\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T18:01:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1967,\"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\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T18:01:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-08T18:01:42+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\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T18:01:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010"},"wordCount":1967,"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\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010","name":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T18:01:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gsrtc-vs-ramkishan-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gsrtc vs Ramkishan on 18 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/176604","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=176604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}