{"id":192383,"date":"2011-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-30T05:58:07","modified_gmt":"2018-01-30T00:28:07","slug":"manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/24958\/2007\t 2\/ 8\tORDER \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. 24958 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMANUBHAI\nMOTIBHAI SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nAGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSHALIN N MEHTA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nMR MK VAKHARIA for Respondent(s) :\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: 28\/03\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate Mr. SN Mehta on behalf of petitioner, learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. MK Vakharia on behalf of respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbrief facts of the present petition are as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\n\tpresent petitioner is working as a Chowkidar\/Watchman in the Market
\n\tYard of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bevla. By way of
\n\tthe present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India,
\n\tthe present petitioner seeks the following:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThat
\n\tthe present petitioner be paid full wages with all consequential
\n\tbenefits with effect from 8\/1\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
(b)That
\n\tthe present petitioner be paid wages for public holidays, with
\n\teffect from 8\/1\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\tThat the present petitioner be paid full wages on the first day of
\n\tevery month.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThat
\n\tthe present petitioner be allowed to mark his attendance in the
\n\tattendance register.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tThat
\n\tthe Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Belva the present
\n\trespondent no. 1, be directed to fully implement the award dated
\n\t16\/9\/2000 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.
\n\t343\/1987 which is affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
\n\tGujarat vide oral order dated 28\/3\/2005 passed in Letters Patent
\n\tAppeal No. 1408\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
 *Prior
\n\tto 1985:\tThe present petitioner was appointed as a
\n\tChowkidar\/Watchman by the present respondent No. 1 Agricultural
\n\tProduce Market Committee, Bevla.\n<\/p>\n
 *1\/9\/1985\t:\tThe
\n\tpresent petitioner was orally terminated by the Agricultural Produce
\n\tMarket Committee, Bevla.\n<\/p>\n
 *11\/2\/1987\t:\tAfter
\n\tfailure of conciliation proceedings, the industrial dispute raised
\n\tby the present petitioner was referred by State Government for
\n\tadjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
 *16\/9\/2000\t:\tAfter
\n\thearing the rival parties, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, passed an
\n\taward directing the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bevla, to
\n\treinstate the present petitioner in service and to pay him 35% back
\n\twages with all other consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
 *2001\t\t:\tThe
\n\tsaid award was challenged by the Agricultural Produce Market
\n\tCommittee, Bevla by filling Special Civil Application no, 8070\/2001
\n\tin this Honourable High Court.\n<\/p>\n
*26\/8\/2003\t:\tSpecial
\n\tCivil application No. 8070\/2001 filed by the Agricultural Produce
\n\tMarket Committee, Bevla was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 *September,
\n\t2003\t:\tLetters Patent Appeal No. 1408\/2003 was filed by
\n\tthe Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bevla, against the oral
\n\torder dated 26\/8\/2003 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this
\n\tHonourable High Court in Special Civil Application No. 8070\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
 *28\/3\/2005\t:\tThe
\n\tLetters Patent Appeal of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
\n\tBevla was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 *February,
\n\t2006\t:Misc. Civil Application no. 436\/2006 was filed by
\n\tthe present petitioner in this Court complaining of the willful and
\n\tdeliberate breach and non compliance of the order dated 28\/3\/2005
\n\tpassed by a Division Bench of this Honourable High Court in Letters
\n\tPatent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 *8\/1\/2007\t:\tAfter
\n\tsome correspondence between the present petitioner and respondents,
\n\tthe present petitioner was allowed to resume service with respondent
\n\tMarket Committee as a Chowkidar\/Watchman.\n<\/p>\n
 *17\/7\/2007\t:\tThe
\n\tpresent petitioner wrote to the Secretary of the Market Committee
\n\tcomplaining about not being paid wages of a permanent employee of
\n\tthe Market Yard.\n<\/p>\n
 *2\/8\/2007\t:\tThe
\n\tpresent petitioner’s Union addressed a letter to the Market
\n\tCommittee complaining of the harassment meted out to the present
\n\tpetitioner by not allowing the present petitioner to mark his
\n\tattendance in the attendance register.??\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by illegal action of the Market Committee, present
\n\tpetition is filed by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprayer made in this present petition to direct respondent no. 1, 2
\n\tand 3 to pay full wages with all benefits w.e.f. 8\/1\/2007 to present
\n\tpetitioner and also to direct the respondent to pay wages for public
\n\tholidays to present petitioner and also direct that every month on
\n\tfirst day salary is to be paid to petitioner by respondent without
\n\tany delay and also to mark daily attendance of the present
\n\tpetitioner in attendance register and fully implement the award of
\n\tLabour Court, Ahmedabad dated 16\/9\/2000 in reference (LCA) No.
\n\t343\/1987 and to restrain the present respondent from terminating
\n\tservice of present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\taffidavit in reply is field by respondent no. 3 raising contention
\n\tthat petitioner was working as daily wager with respondent.
\n\tAccording to respondent,  petitioner was asked to mark his presence
\n\tin the register maintain for daily wagers employees, which he
\n\trefused to do so and therefore, the respondent was constrained not
\n\tto pay salary to him as he has neither marked his presence in the
\n\tregister deliberately, nor has he discharged his duty.  The service
\n\tof the petitioner is not terminated by respondent.  Therefore,
\n\taccording to respondent, petitioner is not prepared to signed muster
\n\tof daily wager and accordingly he has not worked and salary was not
\n\tpaid.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. Mehta submitted that whatever contentions raised by
\n\trespondent in his reply, that has been decided by Division Bench of
\n\tthis Court in LPA no. 1408\/2003 in SCA no. 8070\/2001 in Civil
\n\tApplication  no. 10588\/2003 dated 28\/3\/2005, which is at page 66,
\n\trelevant order of the Division Bench is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
 ?S\tHeard learned Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant – Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bavla, being aggrieved by  the order dated 26.8.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8070 of 2001, rejecting the said Special Civil Application is before this Court, submitting inter alia that  the  order passed  by the learned Single Judge is bad, as it has not taken into consideration  the evidence brought on the record and also tends  to  confirm  the findings which otherwise were perverse.\n<\/p>\n
   After taking us through the entire record including the findings of the learned  Labour Court, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman  was  a  daily wager and therefore, the appellant was justified in discontinuing him.\n<\/p>\n
     On being asked that  if  he  was  a  daily wager and\/or  a casual employee, then why the relevant evidence was not produced before the Labour Court at least to show       that not on regular basis, but the salary was being  paid to  him intermittently, learned Counsel for the appellant      submitted that such evidence has not been produced before the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
  \tAfter going through the complete records, we are unable  to  hold  that  the learned Labour  Court was unjustified in observing that the workman was not a daily wager.   The  learned  Single  Judge  has also recorded reasons for not making interference in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    The endeavour of  the  learned  Counsel  for  the appellant  in fact was to persuade us to take a different view on the strength of the facts which are available  on      the record. In  the opinion of this Court, if there is some evidence available  to  support  the  findings  then simply  because  another  view is possible, the appellate Court shall not interfere in the  matter. We find no reason to interfere.      The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application No.  10588 of 2003 stands
\nrejected.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of the aforesaid decision given by Division Bench of this
\n\tCourt, the decision of learned Single Judge is confirmed by Division
\n\tBench of this Court. On being asked by Division Bench that if he was
\n\tdaily wager and\/or casual employee then why relevant evidence was
\n\tnot produced before Labour Court by respondent.  Therefore, Division
\n\tBench of this Court has come to conclusion that Labour Court has
\n\tperfectly justified in observing that workman was not daily wager
\n\temployee.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid back ground, when petitioner was not daily
\n\twager as observed by Division Bench of this Court and award of
\n\tLabour Court is confirmed upto L.P.A. then stand taken by respondent
\n\tis not proper and respondent shall have to implement award
\n\tinquestion, which has been confirmed upto L.P.A.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tit is directed to respondent to allow to petitioner to mark his
\n\tpresence in attendance register as regular (permanent) employee and
\n\tto pay salary w.e.f. 8\/1\/2007 till 31\/3\/2008 within a period of one
\n\tmonth from the date of receiving copy of this order and also grant
\n\tpublic holidays with wages and to pay salary each month on the first
\n\tday or to pay salary along with regular employee without any delay.
\n\tIt is further directed to respondent to fully implement the award of
\n\tLabour Court, Ahmedabad dated 16\/9\/2000 in reference no. 343\/1987
\n\twhich has been confirmed upto Division Bench and whatever benefit is
\n\tavailable to petitioner as regular employee (permanent) in pursuance
\n\tto implement of award, same shall have to grant and pay within a
\n\tperiod of six weeks from the date of receiving copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,
\n\tpresent petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
asma<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/24958\/2007 2\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24958 of 2007 ========================================================= MANUBHAI MOTIBHAI SOLANKI – Petitioner(s) Versus THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 2 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= […]<\/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-192383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManubhai vs The on 22 March, 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\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-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=\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-30T00:28:07+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\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T00:28:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"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\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T00:28:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 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":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 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\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-30T00:28:07+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\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T00:28:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011"},"wordCount":1367,"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\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011","name":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T00:28:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manubhai-vs-the-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manubhai vs The on 22 March, 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\/192383","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=192383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}