{"id":184167,"date":"2011-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-12T02:02:18","modified_gmt":"2017-03-11T20:32:18","slug":"the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"The vs All on 15 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The vs All on 15 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta, Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,<\/div>\n<pre>  \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/62920\/2008\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 629 of 2008\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 635 of 2008\n \n\n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nTHE\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJYOTINDRASINHJI\nVIKRAMSINHJI JADEJA - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS MAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \n========================================================= \n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n\nCOMMON ORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tAll<br \/>\nthese appeals are taken up for hearing together as they emanate out<br \/>\nof the common order made by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot<br \/>\nBench on 11-5-2007. The appellant   revenue has proposed the<br \/>\nfollowing identically worded questions in each appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>(A)<br \/>\n Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied<br \/>\nu\/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>(B)\t Whether<br \/>\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the<br \/>\norder passed by the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u\/s 273(1)(b)<br \/>\nof the Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. It was submitted<br \/>\nthat in quantum appeal, the respondent   assessee having lost right<br \/>\nupto the Tribunal and<br \/>\nearlier against the order of the Settlement Commission upto the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, the Assessing Officer had rightly imposed penalties<br \/>\nunder Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961<br \/>\n(the Act) for  each of the years under consideration. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that merely by appending  a note to the return of income<br \/>\nthe assessee cannot escape from his liability to return  correct<br \/>\nincome and pay correct tax by way of  advance tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, it has been<br \/>\nfound that the assessee  had placed in the returns of income  the<br \/>\nfollowing note :\n<\/p>\n<p> 1.\tThe<br \/>\nremittance received from the Trusts is not included as according to<br \/>\nthe assessee&#8217;s  opinion the trust being  discretionary  trust the<br \/>\nreceipt trust is not income.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nreturn is subject to our filing petition before the Settlement<br \/>\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nthe order, in relation to the penalties levied under Section<br \/>\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal has recorded as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> We<br \/>\nhave heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower<br \/>\nauthorities and the materials available on record. We find that the<br \/>\nassessee  had not disclosed income from the 2 UK trusts on a  bona<br \/>\nfide belief that the income was not taxable. He said the boa fide<br \/>\nbelief was based upon the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Jurisdictional<br \/>\nGujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamlini Khatu 112 ITR 652.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\nfurther find that the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Gujarat  High Court in<br \/>\nthe case of CIT Vs. Kamlini Khatu was over-rued by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamalini Khatu 209 ITR 101 by<br \/>\nits order dated 9-5-94. Thus, when the assessee filed the return of<br \/>\nincome, the income from 2 UK trusts was not taxable. The Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Vs. CIT 120 ITR 1 (SC) has<br \/>\nheld that penalty under Section 271(1)(c)  was leviable according to<br \/>\nthe law applicable to the assessee on the date on which the default<br \/>\nwas committed  by the assessee. We find that on the date on which the<br \/>\nassessee  filed the  return  the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Gujarat<br \/>\nHigh Court was not over ruled by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court. The same<br \/>\nwas  overruled later on  by the decision dated  9-5-1994. Further we<br \/>\nfind that  after the decision  of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court the<br \/>\nassessee has further filed appeal  in the Gujarat High Court against<br \/>\nthe order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that<br \/>\nthe 2 UK trusts being discretionary  trusts  the income was taxable<br \/>\nin the hands of the beneficiary only when distribution was effected<br \/>\nin favour of the beneficiary by the trust.  The appeal of the<br \/>\nassessee  has been accepted by the Hon&#8217;ble Gujarat High Court and<br \/>\nquestions have been framed thereon according to the statement of the<br \/>\ncounsel of the assessee  made at the Bar. Hence the issue is thus<br \/>\nhighly debatable and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c)<br \/>\ncannot be imposed on the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order<br \/>\nof the CIT(A). It is confirmed. This ground of Revenue is dismissed<br \/>\nfor all the years.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nrelation to the penalty imposed under Section 273(1)(b) of the Act,<br \/>\nthe following  findings have been recorded by the Tribunal :\n<\/p>\n<p> We<br \/>\nhave heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower<br \/>\nauthorities and the material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) has<br \/>\ndecided this issue to quote as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 4.1\tI<br \/>\nhave carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant. It is  seen that the main contention of the appellant is<br \/>\nthat the issue of taxability of income from UK trusts was of highly<br \/>\ndebatable nature. Moreover, he had sufficient grounds to  form an<br \/>\nopinion that the income from UK trusts was not taxable in his hands<br \/>\nbecause of Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Kamlini Khatu<br \/>\n(in force at that time) and contentions made before settlement<br \/>\ncommission in earlier years. The AO has discussed the findings of<br \/>\nsettlement commission  order but has failed to appreciate that the<br \/>\nsaid order was passed on 31-3-89. At the time of filing of advance<br \/>\ntax statements the order was not passed. It may also be mentioned<br \/>\nthat in respect of the same income penalty u\/s  271(1)(c) was also<br \/>\nimposed for all these three years. That issue has been decided by me<br \/>\nby order dtd. 8\/01\/06 in appeal No.119\/02\/03 for Asstt. Year 84-85<br \/>\nand followed in other years. The facts  relating to the taxability of<br \/>\nincome  from UK trusts has been  discussed in detail and it has been<br \/>\nheld that the issue was of debatable nature and the appellant  had<br \/>\nsufficient grounds to be of bona fide belief that such income was not<br \/>\ntaxable  in his hands. In view of that I am of the opinion that the<br \/>\ndefault of not including  this income in the statement of advance tax<br \/>\ncannot be said  to be without reasonable cause. Hence income from UK<br \/>\ntrusts should not be considered  for the purpose of levy of penalty.<br \/>\nOn the basis of  calculations submitted by  the appellant in his<br \/>\nstatement of facts minimum penalty for Asstt. Year  84-85 works out<br \/>\nto Rs.601 and nil for other two years. Therefore, the  penalty for<br \/>\n84-85 is reduced to Rs.601 and cancelled for the other two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA<br \/>\nperusal of  the above finding of the CIT(A) shows that after<br \/>\nappreciating  the entire facts  of the case, he decided  the levy of<br \/>\npenalty. The Revenue could not bring any material on record to<br \/>\ncontrovert  the finding of the CIT(A). No error could be pointed out<br \/>\nin the order of the CIT(A). Hence,  we confirm the order of the<br \/>\nCIT(A) and dismiss this ground of Revenue for all the years.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIt<br \/>\nis apparent that both Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have<br \/>\nconcurrently found that  when the assessee was required to compute<br \/>\nadvance tax and also  file returns of income for the years under<br \/>\nconsideration the decision of this Court in case of Kamlini Khatau<br \/>\nwas in operation and supported the stand  of the assessee. That the<br \/>\ndecision came to be reversed by the Apex Court subsequently, namely<br \/>\nsubsequent to the date of filing of returns of income, or  the due<br \/>\ndates for payment of advance tax. In the aforesaid circumstances, it<br \/>\ncannot be stated that the assessee was liable to be visited with any<br \/>\npenalty either under Section 273(1)(b) of the Act or u\/s 271(1)(c) of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\nappeals are accordingly dismissed in absence of any substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(D.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mehta, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Bankim<br \/>\nN. Mehta,J.)<\/p>\n<p>\/JVSatwara\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court The vs All on 15 November, 2011 Author: D.A.Mehta, Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/62920\/2008 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 629 of 2008 To TAX APPEAL No. 635 of 2008 ========================================================= THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus [&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-184167","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>The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - 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\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-11T20:32:18+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs All on 15 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T20:32:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1262,\"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\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\",\"name\":\"The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T20:32:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs All on 15 November, 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":"The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - 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\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-11T20:32:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs All on 15 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T20:32:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011"},"wordCount":1262,"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\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011","name":"The vs All on 15 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T20:32:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-all-on-15-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs All on 15 November, 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\/184167","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=184167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}