{"id":185089,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-04T17:40:41","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T12:10:41","slug":"gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4189\/2004\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4189 of 2004\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4190 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nSTATE FINANCIAL CORP. - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nINDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nRD DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR CN TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n5. \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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tBy
\nway of these petitions, the petitioner, Gujarat State Financial
\nCorporation (for short, “the Corporation”) seeks to
\nchallenge the common judgment and order passed by the Gujarat State
\nCo-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”)
\nin Misc. Application Nos.121\/2004 & 122\/2004 dated 24.02.2004,
\nwhereby, the said applications have been dismissed and the judgment
\nand decree passed by the Board of Nominee at Ahmedabad in Summary
\nLavad Suit No.1653\/2001 dated 18.08.2003 & Summary Lavad Suit
\nNo.1654\/2004 dated 26.09.2003 came to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npetitioner is a Financial Corporation governed by the provisions of
\nthe State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and is a State
\nGovernment owned Company. The petitioner-Corporation has been
\nincorporated for the purpose of giving financial assistance to new
\nentrepreneurs, who desire to set up their industry within the State
\nof Gujarat and with the object of encouraging the over all
\ndevelopment in the State by generating opportunities of employment
\nand to earn revenue.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSome
\nwhere in 1997 – 1998, one M\/s. Parna Industries Ltd., which is
\na sister concern of M\/s. Prasidhi Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., respondent
\nno.3 herein, approached the petitioner-Corporation for the grant of
\nfinancial assistance. After scrutinizing the loan documents, the
\npetitioner-Corporation sanctioned the loan vide sanction letter dated
\n06.02.1998. In accordance with the terms & conditions of the
\ngrant of loan, the Company had created equitable mortgage of the
\nimmovable property belonging to respondent no.3 being Bungalow No.
\n43, situated in “Golden Tulip Co-operative Housing Society Ltd”
\nand having T.P. Scheme No.21, Vasna, Ahmedabad, in favour of the
\npetitioner-Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tEarlier,
\nthe said property was a part of a Society, named, “Hasunagar
\nCo-operative Housing Society Ltd.” On or around 10.05.1995, the
\ndivision of original society, namely, “Hasunagar Co-operative
\nHousing Society Ltd.” was effected by the District Registrar of
\nCo-operative Housing Societies, Ahmedabad and pursuant to the said
\ndivision, the Society was divided into six different Co-operative
\nSocieties and one of them was named as “Golden Tulip
\nCo-operative Housing Society Ltd.”, of which the disputed
\nproperty is a part at present.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tUpon
\nrequest of said M\/s. Parna Industries Pvt. Ltd., the
\npetitioner-Corporation granted further financial assistance, by way
\nof Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.130.99 Lacs, after executing
\nnecessary security documents, including extension of equitable
\nmortgage, for the purpose of covering up the financial assistance.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\n2001, respondent no.1 herein, the Gujarat Industrial Co-operative
\nBank Ltd. (for short, “the Bank”) filed suits being Lavad
\nSuit Nos.1649\/2001, 1653\/2001 & 1654\/2001 against respondent
\nnos.2 to 5 before the Board of Nominees for the alleged recovery of
\nits dues. When the petitioner-Corporation came to know about the
\nfiling of the aforesaid suits, it filed an application under Order-1
\nRule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining as a
\nparty-defendant in the said proceedings, which was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAfter
\nhearing the respective parties and after considering the evidence on
\nrecord, the Board of Nominees decreed the suits in favour of
\nrespondent no.1-Bank together with interest, by way of judgment and
\ndecree passed in Summary Lavad Suit No.1653\/2001 dated 18.08.2003 &
\nNo.1654\/2004 dated 26.09.2003 along  with a direction that regarding
\nits claim of having first charge over the disputed property, the
\npetitioner-Corporation shall approach the competent authority
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tBeing
\naggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decrees, the
\npetitioner-Corporation preferred Misc. Applications Nos.121\/2004 &
\n122\/2004 before the Tribunal. After considering the records of the
\ncase, the Tribunal dismissed both the applications, by way of common
\norder dated 24.02.2004. Hence, these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
R. D. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioner-Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal as well as the
\nBoard of Nominee failed to appreciate the fact that the
\npetitioner-Corporation had first charge over the property in
\nquestion. He submitted that the claim of respondent no.1-Bank is void
\nab initio and cannot be enforced since it is not registered by
\nrespondent no.3 before the competent authority, as required u\/s. 125
\nof the Companies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
9.1\tLearned
\ncounsel for the petitioner further submitted that the “Golden
\nTulip Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” came into existence
\nsome where around 10.05.1995 pursuant to the division of the
\nerstwhile “Hasunagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.”
\ninto six different Co-operative Societies.  Therefore, the “Golden
\nTulip Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” had the authority to
\nissue Share Certificate in favour of respondent no.3 at the time of
\nallotment of the property. The respondent no.3 had only submitted the
\nallotment certificate issued by erstwhile “Hasunagar
\nCo-operative Housing Society Ltd.” so as to create equitable
\nmortgage. Neither the charge of respondent no.1-Bank was registered
\nbefore the competent authority nor the erstwhile Society had any
\npowers to issue any letter of authority after the date of its
\ndivision, i.e. 10.05.1995. Therefore, equitable mortgage was not
\nlegally and validly created in favour of respondent no.1-Bank by
\nrespondent no.3.  Consequently, respondent no.1-Bank does not get any
\nright to recover the amount against the disputed property.\n<\/p>\n
9.2\tLearned
\ncounsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal has
\nerred in recording the conclusion that mortgage was created in favour
\nof respondent no.1-Bank in the year 1997 and that subsequently, for
\nthe same disputed property, mortgage was created in favour of the
\npetitioner-Corporation in the year 1998 since the mortgage in
\nquestion created in favour of respondent no.1 was not legal and
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
9.3\tLearned
\ncounsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the
\nprovision of Section 18 of The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act,
\n1961 regarding cancellation of registration of amalgamated, divided
\nor converted societies. He has submitted that the loan which was
\nadvanced by respondent no.1-Bank was on the basis of a Share
\nCertificate that was bogus as it was not having any valid and legal
\ntitle. He has contented that neither the Tribunal nor the Board of
\nNominee have given their findings on the said issue. Hence, the
\nimpugned orders, being illegal and perverse, deserve to be quashed
\nand set aside.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
C. N. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
\nno.1-Bank, submitted that the mortgage deed in respect of the
\ndisputed property was executed by and between respondent no.1-Bank
\nand respondent nos.2 to 5 herein on 18.09.1997, meaning thereby, that
\nrespondent no.1-Bank had advanced the loan prior in point of time
\nthan the petitioner-Corporation. Hence, respondent no.1-Bank has
\nfirst charge over the property in question. Learned counsel has,
\ntherefore, submitted that looking to the evidence on record, this
\nCourt may not exercise its discretionary powers in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tHeard
\nlearned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
\non record. Along with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
\nrespondent no.1-Bank, a copy of the Mortgage Deed dated 18.09.1997
\nexecuted by and between respondent no.1-Bank and the Director of
\nrespondent no.3 has been produced. A plain reading of the said Deed
\ngoes to show that the financial assistance was advanced by creating
\nequitable mortgage of the disputed property. It is a matter of record
\nthat the disputed property was earlier situated in the Society,
\nnamed, “Hasunagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.”
\nwhich was divided into six different Societies on or around
\n10.05.1995. Pursuant to such division, the disputed property became a
\npart of the new Society, named, “Golden Tulip Co-operative
\nHousing Society Ltd”. In the Mortgage Deed dated 18.09.1997
\nitself, it has been specifically stated that the disputed property is
\nalso known as “Golden Tulip Bungalow”. The
\npetitioner-Bank had sanctioned loan in the year 1998, viz. after loan
\nwas granted by respondent no.1-Bank, by accepting equitable mortgage
\nof the disputed property. It is established from the records of the
\ncase that respondent no.1-Bank had advanced loan in the year 1997,
\nwhereas, the petitioner-Corporation had advanced loan in the year
\n1998, both by accepting mortgage of the disputed property. It is
\nclear from the records that respondent no.1-Bank had advanced loan
\nagainst the disputed property first in point of time as compared to
\nthe petitioner-Corporation  and therefore, undoubtedly, respondent
\nno.1-Bank shall have first charge over the disputed property.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\npetitioner-Corporation, who was joined as a party-defendant in the
\nproceedings before the Board of Nominee, has not confronted with the
\nShare Certificate that was issued subsequently. In fact, it appears
\nfrom the record that in the proceedings before the Board of Nominee,
\nthe witness of respondent no.1-Bank was not cross-examined by the
\nother side though the opportunity was given. Moreover, no documentary
\nevidence was also produced by the petitioner-Corporation in support
\nof its case. Therefore, the Board of Nominees had closed the right of
\ncross-examination and production of documents of the
\npetitioner-Corporation. When the petitioner-Corporation has failed to
\nexercise its rights that were available to it before the Board of
\nNominee in the Lavad proceedings, it cannot be permitted to raise the
\nsame at this stage.  The petitioner-Corporation ought to have availed
\nthe opportunity of cross-examining the witness\/s of respondent
\nno.1-Bank and ought to have produced documentary evidence in support
\nof its case at the relevant time. However, the said opportunity was
\nnot availed by it.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt
\nought to have been that before issuing the new Share Certificate, the
\nShare Certificate issued by the erstwhile Society ought to have been
\ntaken back. The non-collection of the Share Certificate issued by the
\nerstwhile Society, gives an inclination to a Member of the
\nreconstituted Society, to avail a loan on the basis of the Share
\nCertificate issued by the reconstituted Society. The laxity on the
\npart of the Society has enabled       a Member to commit fraud by
\ntaking loan of huge amounts from two different financial institutions
\n\/ bank by mortgaging the same property. The new Share Certificate was
\nto be issued against the deposit of the old Share Certificate, which
\nhas not been done in the present case. Hence, in view of the
\nprovision of Section 19 of The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act,
\nthe reliance placed upon the provision of Section 18 of the said Act
\nby learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation will not be of any
\nhelp to the petitioner-Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tConsidering
\nthe facts of the case and the evidence on record, the respondent
\nno.1-Bank has first charge over the disputed property. Both the Board
\nof Nominee as well as the Tribunal below have appreciated the
\nevidence on record in its proper perspective and are completely
\njustified in passing the impugned orders. I am in complete agreement
\nwith the reasonings given in the impugned orders and hence, find no
\nreasons to interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule is
\ndischarged. The disputed property has been auctioned pursuant to the
\norders of this Court. The sale proceeds deposited with the
\npetitioner-Corporation with be paid to respondent no.1-Bank along
\nwith the accrued interest within a period of four weeks from today.
\nWith the above direction, the petitions stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
[K.\n<\/p>\n
S. JHAVERI, J.]\t<\/p>\n
Pravin\/*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4189\/2004 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4189 of 2004 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4190 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI […]<\/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-185089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T12:10:41+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\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T12:10:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1785,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T12:10:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 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":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T12:10:41+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\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T12:10:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":1785,"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\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010","name":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T12:10:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-gujarat-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Gujarat on 28 September, 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\/185089","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=185089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}