{"id":181974,"date":"2008-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-15T07:11:36","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T01:41:36","slug":"united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008<\/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\nFA\/2714\/2008\t 7\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 2714 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 7050 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nFIRST APPEAL No. 2714 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nUNITED\nINDIA INSURANCE CO. - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDAXABEN\nJASHWANTBHAI KHRISTI &amp; 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nGC MAZMUDAR for\nAppellant(s):1,MR HG MAZMUDAR for Appellant(s): 1, \nNone for\nDefendant(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: 13\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar appearing on behalf of appellant ?<br \/>\nUnited India Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant has challenged the award passed by Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2546 of 2000<br \/>\ndated 12th July 2007. The Claims Tribunal has awarded<br \/>\nRs.75,560\/- with 9% interest in favour of respondent claimant.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Mazmudar raised contention before this Court that<br \/>\nrespondent claimants were  travelling in tempo rickshaw which was<br \/>\ngoods vehicle and these claimants gratuitous passengers and received<br \/>\nthe injury, therefore, the appellants are not entitled any amount of<br \/>\ncompensation from the Insurance Company. Learned advocate Mr.<br \/>\nMazmudar submitted that Insurance Company is not liable to make the<br \/>\npayment as risk of gratuitous passengers are not covered under the<br \/>\npolicy. No additional premium was paid by insured to the insurance<br \/>\ncompany, therefore, risk of these gratuitous passengers is not<br \/>\ncovered, therefore, Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding<br \/>\ncompensation holding liable the insurance company. He relied upon the<br \/>\ndecision of Asharani reported in 2003(2) SCC 223.<br \/>\nTherefore, he submitted that Tribunal has committed gross error.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of appellant. I have perused the award passed by<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal, Nadiad. The written statement filed by the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany vide Exh.22, where, insurance company ?  appellant has not<br \/>\nraised such contention before the Claims Tribunal, but, only<br \/>\ncontention is raised that if ultimately, insurance company is held<br \/>\nliable, then, it was a limited liability. The Tribunal has examined<br \/>\nthe matter on the basis of the records and awarded compensation of<br \/>\nRs.75,560\/- with 9% interest. The insurance company has not raised<br \/>\nthis contention that tempo rickshaw is a goods vehicle and<br \/>\nrespondents claimants are a gratuitous passengers travelling in tempo<br \/>\nrickshaw and risk of this claimants are not covered under the<br \/>\ninsurance policy and additional premium was not paid by the insured.<br \/>\nIn absence of such contentions, naturally, Tribunal has not examined<br \/>\nsuch contentions which were not raised before the Claims Tribunal by<br \/>\nthe insurance company and first time it was raised before this Court<br \/>\nby the insurance company. In light of these, this Court cannot<br \/>\nconsider such contentions which was first time raised by the<br \/>\ninsurance company before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nsaid view has taken by Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra<br \/>\nversus Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another<br \/>\nreported in AIR<br \/>\n1982 SC 1249, the<br \/>\napex court has taken view that the Judge&#8217;s record is conclusive,<br \/>\nneither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it except before<br \/>\nthe Judge himself but nowhere else. Relevant observations made by the<br \/>\napex court in para 4,5,6 and 7 of the  said judgment are reproduced<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<p>4.<br \/>\nWhen we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the<br \/>\nconcession made before the High Court, Shri A. K. Sen, who appeared<br \/>\nfor the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the<br \/>\narguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay<br \/>\nbefore us intervened and protested that he never made any such<br \/>\nconcession and invited us to peruse the written submission made by<br \/>\nhim in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an<br \/>\ninquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not<br \/>\ndone. Public Policy bars us Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of<br \/>\nJudicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt.<br \/>\nJudges cannot be dragged into the arena. &#8220;Judgments cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as mere counters in the game of litigation&#8221;. (Per Lord<br \/>\nAtkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136). We are<br \/>\nbound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their<br \/>\njudgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the<br \/>\nstatement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar<br \/>\nor by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their<br \/>\njudgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that<br \/>\nhas to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled<br \/>\nthat statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing,<br \/>\nrecorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so<br \/>\nstated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or<br \/>\nother evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have<br \/>\nbeen wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party,<br \/>\nwhile the matter is still, fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call<br \/>\nthe attention of the very Judges who have made the record to &#8216;the<br \/>\nfact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a<br \/>\nstatement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in<br \/>\nMadhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to<br \/>\nhave the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must<br \/>\nnecessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate<br \/>\nCourt may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a<br \/>\nconcession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong<br \/>\nappreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may<br \/>\nnot call in question the very fact of makingthe concession as<br \/>\nrecorded in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>4-A.\n<\/p>\n<p>In R. v. Mellor (1858) 7 Cox CC 454 Martin B was reported to have<br \/>\nsaid : &#8220;We must consider the statement of the learned judge as<br \/>\nabsolute verity and we ought to take. his statement precisely as a<br \/>\nrecord and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which<br \/>\nof itself implies an absolute verity.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<br \/>\nIn King. Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose, (1924) 28 Cal WN 170 : (AIR<br \/>\n1924 Cal 257) (FB), Page, J. said.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.these<br \/>\nproceedings emphasise the  importance of rigidly  maintaining the<br \/>\nrule that a statement by a learned Judge as to what took place during<br \/>\nthe course of a trial before him is final and decisive; it is not to<br \/>\nbe criticised or circumvented; much less is it to be exposed to<br \/>\nanimad version.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.<br \/>\nIn Sarat Chandra v. Bibhabati Debi (1921) 34 Cal LJ 302 : (AIR 1921<br \/>\nCal 584), Sir Asutosh Mookherjee explained what had to be done :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It<br \/>\nis plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels<br \/>\naggrieved by the statement in a judgment that an admission has been<br \/>\nmade, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever<br \/>\npracticable, is to apply to the Judge, without delay and ask for<br \/>\nrectification or review of the judgment&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.<br \/>\n\tSo the Judges&#8217; record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may<br \/>\nclaim to contradict it, except before the Judge, himself, but nowhere<br \/>\nelse.??\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nin the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/408851\/\">Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab and<br \/>\nothers<\/a>, etc. reported in AIR 1985 SC 973, Five Judges&#8217;<br \/>\nBench of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court observed the same in Para 13 of the<br \/>\nsaid judgment, which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t?S13.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t The final submission of Shri Ramamurthi was that several other<br \/>\n\tquestions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but<br \/>\n\tthey were not considered. We attach no significance to this<br \/>\n\tsubmission. It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise<br \/>\n\tinnumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc.,<br \/>\n\tbut later, confine themselves in the course of arguments  to a few<br \/>\n\tonly of those grounds, obviously because the rest of the grounds are<br \/>\n\tconsidered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is<br \/>\n\tthereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued<br \/>\n\twere not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not<br \/>\n\tconsidered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw<br \/>\n\tattention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper<br \/>\n\tapplication for review  or clarification. The time of the superior<br \/>\n\tcourts is not to be wasted in enquiring into the question whether a<br \/>\n\tcertain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the<br \/>\n\tsubordinate court was argued before that court or not. ???\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe above two judgments, the Apex Court has held the said view in<br \/>\ncase of Shankar K. Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar and<br \/>\nOthers reported in (2003)<br \/>\n9 SCC 519. The relevant<br \/>\nobservation is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>?SHeld<br \/>\n: It is not open for the appellants to take such stand before the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, as they are bound by the observations of the High<br \/>\nCourt. If there was any wrong recording of the stands or a different<br \/>\nstand was taken, the only course open to the appellant was to move<br \/>\nthe High Court. Statements of fact as to what transpired at the<br \/>\nhearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the<br \/>\nfacts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by<br \/>\naffidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in<br \/>\ncourt have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon<br \/>\nthe party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the<br \/>\nJudges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the<br \/>\nrecord. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such<br \/>\nstep is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open<br \/>\nto the appellant to contend before the Supreme Court to the contrary.<br \/>\nIt is also not open to contend that a plea raised was not<br \/>\nconsidered.??\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the decisions of Apex Court as referred above, when no such<br \/>\ncontention was raised before the Claims Tribunal by the appellant,<br \/>\nthis Court cannot consider the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tTherefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, Tribunal has rightly examined the matter on<br \/>\nthe basis of the records and the findings recorded by the Tribunal<br \/>\ncannot consider to be baseless and perverse and therefore, according<br \/>\nto my opinion, Tribunal has not committed any error which require<br \/>\ninterference by this Court as there is no substance in the present<br \/>\nappeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThe<br \/>\namount, if any, which has been deposited by insurance company before<br \/>\nthe registry of this Court be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal<br \/>\nconcerned immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tAs<br \/>\nthe First Appeal has been dismissed by this Court, no order is<br \/>\nrequired to be passed in Civil Application and therefore, Civil<br \/>\nApplication is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/2714\/2008 7\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2714 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7050 of 2008 In FIRST APPEAL No. 2714 of 2008 ========================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [&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-181974","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>United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - 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\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T01:41:36+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T01:41:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1700,\"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\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\",\"name\":\"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T01:41:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United vs Daxaben on 13 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":"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - 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\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T01:41:36+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T01:41:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008"},"wordCount":1700,"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\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008","name":"United vs Daxaben on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T01:41:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-vs-daxaben-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United vs Daxaben on 13 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\/181974","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=181974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}