{"id":179921,"date":"2011-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-31T22:18:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-31T16:48:38","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nMCA\/2692\/2010\t 16\/ 16\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR EXTENTION OF TIME No. 2692 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 1893 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6193 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14539 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14724 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 812 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5760 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14604 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 926 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10488 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14657 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 809 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 24347 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5263 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14723 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 16884 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 16577 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 15611 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAHMEDABAD\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHIVLAL\nK PUROHIT & 8 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSN SHELAT WITH MRS VD NANAVATI\nfor\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR AMIT M PANCHAL for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR\nKAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nwith MS SANGEETA VISHEN, AGP for Opponent(s) : 2, \nNone for\nOpponent(s) : 3, 9, \nMR HS MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 4, \nMR\nPRANAV G DESAI for Opponent(s) : 5, \nMR\nDHAVAL G NANAVATI for Opponent(s) : 6, \n(MR RM CHHAYA) for\nOpponent(s) : 7, \nMR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Opponent(s) :\n8, \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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA)<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\ncounsel for C.G.Road Shop Owners’ Association and Jewellers’
\nAssociation and other affected parties brought to the notice of the
\nCourt a Bill, namely, “Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised
\nDevelopment Bill, 2011” passed by the State Legislature
\nwhere-under the Legislature intends to make provisions for
\nregularisation of unauthorised development in developed areas in the
\nState on fulfillment of certain conditions as mentioned therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nAdvocate General appearing on behalf of the State submits that the
\nBill has now been forwarded to Her Excellency, the Governor of the
\nState for approval. It is expected that a decision would be taken on
\nan early date.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\ncounsel for the C.G.Road Shop Owners’ Association and other
\nAssociation similarly affected persons submitted that the owners of
\nthe building\/shop premises or part of the premises, whoever is
\neligible under the proposed Regularisation Act, 2011 for
\nregularisation of their building\/shop premises are ready to furnish
\nundertaking for the present before the Commissioner, Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Corporation, that they will take rectification measures and
\nfulfill all the conditions as may require for regularisation of their
\nrespective buildings or part premises. It is also submitted that some
\ntime should be allowed to the owners to await for the enactment of
\nthe proposed Regularisation Act, 2011 and further time be allowed in
\ntheir favour in terms with the time as stipulated in the proposed
\nRegularisation Act, 2011 for making application for regularisation of
\ntheir buildings or part of the premises. Moreover, if one or other
\nowner of the building or premises, etc. who have violated any
\nprovision of law, whether he is a party before this Court or not, or
\nwhether he is a petitioner or respondent before this Court or not,
\nand who want the advantage of the proposed Regularisation Act, 2011,
\nthey will also file undertaking before the Corporation that they will
\nfulfill the conditions and apply within the time as may be framed
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Association and other
\naffected persons further contended that it is not possible for all
\nthe owners or part of the premises to jointly apply, as suggested by
\ncounsel for the Corporation. Therefore, they should be allowed to
\nfurnish their independent undertaking before the Commissioner,
\nAhmedabad Municipal Corporation. After enactment of the proposed
\nRegularisation Act, 2011 they will apply in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.S.N.Shelat,
\nlearned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation
\nsubmitted that this Court may pass an order, inter alia, for
\nsuspension of sealing of the units, suspension of demolition of
\nunauthorized construction undertaken by the Municipal Corporation and
\nfor a further direction to open seal. But, such order be passed on
\nthe following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
“That
\nthe undertaking be filed;\n<\/p>\n
I
\nBy the owner, if the building is owned by the individual owner.\n<\/p>\n
(a)By
\njoint owners or co-sharers, if they jointly own or co-share the
\nbuilding\/property.\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\nAll the occupants of the building be directed to file undertaking in
\nview of the following:\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\nBuilding Use Permission is granted for the entire building.\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\nFSI is considered on the basis of area occupied by the entire
\nbuilding.\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\nParking space is to be determined on the basis of area occupied and
\nused by the building.\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\nIn absence of all occupants it may be difficult for the department to
\nmeet with the regularisation process.\n<\/p>\n
II
\nIf the Act and Rules come into force then undertaking as suggested by
\nthe petitioner i.e. by the owner or by some of the occupants can be
\nconsidered in accordance with the provisions thereof.\n<\/p>\n
III
\nIn the event of the Act and the Rules not coming into force on the
\nexpiry of three months from the date of reopening of the seal, the
\nTown Planning Department can reapply the seal.\n<\/p>\n
IV
\nIn the event of the Act coming into force prior to three months the
\ntime frame as provided by the Act and the Rules can be considered by
\nthe applicants and in the meanwhile no sealing operation be
\nundertaken. In the meanwhile, rectification measures as required
\nunder the Act and necessary payment of fees as required under the Act
\nmay be paid by the applicants.\n<\/p>\n
V
\nIn the event the application for regularization is rejected the seals
\ncan be reapplied subject to the rights of the aggrieved party to
\nchallenge the rejection of the application.\n<\/p>\n
VI
\nWhile reopening the seal the applicants are required to pay
\nadministrative charges to the Municipal Corporation.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Amit
\nPanchal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Special Civil
\nApplication No.10488\/2008 has filed an affidavit today and has
\nvehemently opposed the prayer and contended that in absence of any
\nRegularisation Act at present, the Court should not accept the
\nundertaking intended to be filed by C.G.Road Shop Owners’ Association
\nor Jewellers’ Association or other association or its members or
\nother affected persons before the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Mihir
\nThakore, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nAssociation and affected persons filed a format of undertaking, which
\nreads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t“I,
\nGaurav S.Shah, do hereby undertake as under:\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam the Authorized Signatory of Simurg Appliances Pvt. Ltd, having
\n\tits registered office at B-6 Shri Krishna Centre, Near Mithakali Six
\n\tRoads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009. I say that Simurg Appliances
\n\tPvt. Ltd owns and occupies part of the Upper Basement at Shri
\n\tKrishna Centre, Near Mithakali Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380\n<\/p>\n
\t009. I say that the upper basement portion of the premises of the
\n\tPrivate Limited Company have been sealed by the Ahmedabad Municipal
\n\tCorporation on 20th December 2010. I say that Simurg
\n\tAppliances Pvt. Ltd at its Board Meeting held on 2nd May
\n\t2011, by resolution has authorised me to file this undertaking and
\n\taccordingly I am filing this undertaking for and on behalf of Simurg
\n\tAppliances Pvt. Ltd and the same shall be binding on Simurg
\n\tAppliances Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the Resolution is annexed hereto and
\n\tmarked Annexure-1.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tsay that the Gujarat Legislative Assembly has passed the Gujarat
\n\tRegularization of Unauthorized Development Bill, 2011 on 28.03.2011
\n\tand the Bill is awaiting the assent of the Governor. I say that if
\n\tGujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Bill, 2011 is
\n\tenacted as an Act, my aforesaid premises, even if considered
\n\tunauthorized, is liable to be regularised under such Act. I hereby
\n\tundertake to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that on such Act coming
\n\tinto force, I shall make an application for regularisation thereof,
\n\twithin six months from the Act coming into force or within the time
\n\tstipulated thereunder, whichever is earlier. I further undertake to
\n\ttake all rectification measures as stipulated under such Act and
\n\talso to pay such fees as stipulated under such Act.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tsay that my premises are situated in ___________ Association and
\n\t____________ Association and it shall be my endeavour that the
\n\tapplication is made by all the members of both the Associations,
\n\tfailing which I shall make application individually or jointly with
\n\tother similarly situated persons with a request that the same be
\n\tconsidered under the provisions of the of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tfurther undertake that if under the provisions of such Act I am not
\n\tentitled to apply or that the application made by me is rejected,
\n\tthe Corporation would be entitled to again put seals on the property
\n\tand take such further action as they would be entitled under the
\n\tlaw.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe event such proposed Act does not come into force, within 3
\n\tmonths hereof, I undertake to abide by the present law.\n<\/p>\n
This
\nundertaking is without prejudice to my rights and contentions
\notherwise available to me in law as effective today and in respect of
\nthe proposed Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nwill be evident that this Court, having noticed illegal construction
\nor use of one or other building in the town of Ahmedabad, passed
\ndifferent orders in the cases of Consumer Protection Council vs.
\nAhmedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in 2000(3) GLR 2607,
\nof Sharda Sahakari Gruh Mandali Limited and others v\/s. Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Corporation and others, reported in 2006(2) GLR
\n1765, and of Suo Motu proceedings v\/s. Ahmedabad Municipal
\nCorporation and others (S.C.A. No.13308\/2004), reported in
\n2006(2) GLR 1129. In spite of such directions given by the
\nCourt in all these cases, no steps were taken by the Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Corporation and, therefore, the matter calls for serious
\npublic concern.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the first order passed by this Court in the case of Consumer
\nProtection Council (supra), the Legislature originally enacted an Act
\nknown as “The Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised
\nDevelopments Act, 2001”. In spite of such Regularisation Act,
\nno application was made. It appears that most of the persons did not
\nchoose to file any application for regularisation of their building.
\nTaking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court intended to
\ninitiate contempt proceedings in the pending writ petition in
\nquestion – Special Civil Application No.10488\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen
\nthe Corporation noticed as to why a proceeding for contempt be not
\ninitiated, the Corporation hurriedly sealed  a large number of shop
\npremises on C.G.Road and some other roads but many of the building
\npremises alleged to have not been sealed.\n<\/p>\n
\tInitially,
\nC.G.Road Shop Owners’ Association and Jewellers’ Association asked
\nfor some time to take correctional measures. Time was allowed and
\ninterim order of stay was passed. However, the individual shop owners
\nor builders, having failed to take correctional measures by making
\nthe provision for parking space or other facilities, the interim
\norder of stay was rejected. Thereafter, the Corporation sealed many
\nof the shop premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nhas been brought to our notice that in some of the cases, in view of
\nthe interim order of stay, the premises have not been sealed. In some
\nother cases, in absence of any interim order or because of rejection
\nof petition for interim relief, some of the premises have been
\nsealed. There are other cases i.e. some other buildings in the town
\nof Ahmedabad where the Corporation has not sealed the premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nquestion arises, whether at this stage the Corporation should be
\ndirected to open the seal and allow the occupiers to run their
\nbusiness or utilize their respective premises before the proposed
\nRegularisation Act, 2011 is enacted.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nhas been brought to our notice that because of sealing, a large
\nnumber of workmen working in different shops are rendered jobless,
\nmay be, temporarily. Further, we find that the Legislature also
\nintended to regularise the premises including the use of such
\npremises and may allow one or other occupier of building or part of
\nthe building to change the premises from residential to commercial.
\nThe Corporation has also agreed that they may stop further sealing or
\nreopen the sealing already made, on receipt of undertaking of
\nparticular nature if given by the owner of the premises or part of
\nthe premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Corporation
\nnot to make further sealing and where sealing has already been made,
\nto reopen such sealing for the present, if individual owner of the
\nbuilding or premises or part of the premises files an undertaking
\nbefore the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and states
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\toccupiers will file application for regularisation of the building
\n\talong with requisite fee, as may be prescribed under the proposed
\n\tRegularisation Act, 2011, within the time as may be prescribed under
\n\tthe Act. If no such time is prescribed under the Act, then they will
\n\tapply within six months from the date of enactment of the proposed
\n\tRegularisation Act, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
They
\n\twill take all rectification measures as per the provisions of the
\n\tproposed Regularisation Act, 2011, and only on satisfaction of the
\n\tCorporation, they will continue with the occupation of the premises,
\n\tas per the existing Building Use Permission.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\toccupiers of the premises will specifically give an undertaking that
\n\tthey will obtain Building Use Permission for the entire building or
\n\tpart of the building, if it is permitted under the proposed
\n\tRegularisation Act, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
FSI
\n\twill be considered on the basis of the area occupied by the entire
\n\tbuilding.\n<\/p>\n
Parking
\n\tspace will be determined on the basis of the area of the building
\n\tand the nature of use of such building i.e. residential or
\n\tcommercial or both residential and commercial; and<\/p>\n
If
\n\tthe Act is not enacted within three months i.e. by 15th
\n\tAugust 2011, it will be open to the Corporation to seal\/re-seal the
\n\tpremises.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\nif one or other occupier is entitled for regularisation as per the
\nRegularisation Act, 2001, in such case, if the proposed
\nRegularisation Act, 2011 is not enacted, he will give undertaking
\nthat he will take measures for regularisation as per Regularisation
\nAct, 2001, by 15th September 2011.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\nsuch undertaking is given by one or other occupier of the
\nbuilding\/premises or part of the premises or by co-sharers of such
\nbuilding, jointly or separately, the Corporation will not seal the
\npremises or part of the premises, as the case may be, till 15th
\nAugust 2011 or till the time as may be stipulated under the proposed
\nRegularisation Act, 2011 to make application, if the Act is enacted,
\nwhichever is later.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhere
\npremises or part of the premises has already been sealed, on receipt
\nof such undertaking the premises or part of the premises be re-opened
\nand allow the occupier to use the premises as he was using earlier,
\ntill 15th August 2011 or till the time as may be
\nstipulated under the proposed Regularisation Act, 2011 to make
\napplication, if the Act is enacted, whichever is later.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\norder will be applicable not only to those who have moved before this
\nCourt or party to one or other case, but to all those who may claim
\nbenefit of the proposed Regularisation Act, 2011, of which, “The
\nGujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Bill, 2011”
\nhas already been passed by the Legislature and forwarded to Her
\nExcellency, the Governor of Gujarat, for assent.\n<\/p>\n
\tPost
\nthe matter on 4th July 2011. Direct service is permitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tInterim
\norders passed in cases or the prayers for interim relief, which
\nearlier rejected, stand modified to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
\nCJ.)<\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\/moin<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print MCA\/2692\/2010 16\/ 16 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR EXTENTION OF TIME No. 2692 of 2010 In MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR REVIEW No. 1893 of 2010 In […]<\/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-179921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAhmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-31T16:48:38+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-31T16:48:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2376,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-31T16:48:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-31T16:48:38+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-31T16:48:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011"},"wordCount":2376,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011","name":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-31T16:48:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-learned-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Learned on 24 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179921","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=179921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}