{"id":198648,"date":"2010-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-01T05:54:40","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T00:24:40","slug":"everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/664\/2009\t 9\/ 11\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. 664 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 673 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\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\nEVEREST\nPUBLICITY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMUNICIPAL\nCOMMISSIONER &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMIHIR JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR. AJAY S JAGIRDAR\nfor Petitioner(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR RM CHHAYA\nfor Respondent(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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tAs<br \/>\ncommon question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions,<br \/>\nthey are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tIn<br \/>\nall this group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate Writ,<br \/>\ndirection and\/or order declaring action of the respondents as illegal<br \/>\nin indulging into demolition of the hoardings of the respective<br \/>\npetitioners, particulars of which are as per Annexure C to the<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that they are<br \/>\ndoing business of outdoor advertising, putting hoardings in the city<br \/>\nof Rajkot since many years and paying licence fees regularly.  That<br \/>\nthey have paid licence fees lastly for the accounting year 2008<br \/>\n2009. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that<br \/>\nrespondent   Corporation without issuing any show cause notice,<br \/>\nstarted large scale demolition in the City of Rajkot in the afternoon<br \/>\nof Friday (23.01.2009) and some hoardings were demolished.<br \/>\nTherefore, respective petitioners have approached before this Court<br \/>\nby way of present petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that regulations<br \/>\nin respect of placing of the hoardings are permitted and notification<br \/>\nwas issued in 2002 and subsequently in 2004 and therefore, respective<br \/>\npetitions have been granted licence to placement of hoardings at<br \/>\nvarious sites in the city of Rajkot and thereafter have paid licence<br \/>\nfees of Rs.300\/- per Sq.Mts.  for non-lit hoardings and Rs.400\/- per<br \/>\nSq.Mtrs. for lit hoardings. Therefore, it is submitted that action of<br \/>\nthe respondents in demolishing some of the hoardings  and proposed<br \/>\naction of demolition of advertising \/ boards of the respective<br \/>\npetitioners are absolutely illegal and such high handed action is bad<br \/>\nin law, illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tMr.Mihir<br \/>\nJoshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respective<br \/>\npetitioners has submitted that action of the respondents pulling down<br \/>\nhoardings lying in private premise is absolutely high handed and<br \/>\nwithout issuing any notice or without giving any opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing and without following principles of natural justice.  It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that same is with ulterior purpose to pressurize the<br \/>\nadvertisers who have been granted permission to put up hoardings in<br \/>\nprivate properties and is trying to monopolize the advertising<br \/>\nbusiness of the persons who have been allotted the tender more<br \/>\nparticularly allotted to one Sambhav Media Ltd. by the respondent<br \/>\nCorporation.  Sum and substance of submissions and case of the<br \/>\nrespective petitioners in nutshell is that they have been issued<br \/>\nlicence and have paid licence fees up to 2008-2009 and still without<br \/>\nany notice, without giving any opportunity, respondent<br \/>\nCorporation is likely to demolish hoardings \/ advertising boards of<br \/>\nthe respective petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tAll<br \/>\nthese petitions are opposed by Mr.R.M.Chhaya, learned Advocate<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent   Corporation.  It is submitted by<br \/>\nMr.Chhaya, learned Advocate for the respondent   Corporation that<br \/>\nall these petitions are required to be dismissed on the ground of<br \/>\nsuppression of material fact. It is submitted that case on behalf of<br \/>\nthe respective petitioners that proposed action is without any notice<br \/>\nand\/ or without giving any opportunity is factually incorrect. He has<br \/>\nrelied upon various correspondences between respondent<br \/>\nCorporation and respective petitioners which are annexed with<br \/>\naffidavit -in-reply. It is further submitted by Mr.Chhaya, learned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the respondent   Corporation that as such none of the<br \/>\nrespective petitioners have applied for licence as per General<br \/>\nDevelopment Control Regulations (herein after referred to as &#8216;GDCR&#8217;<br \/>\nfor short) after 2004 and time and again all the respective<br \/>\npetitioners were called upon to see that provisions of GDCR are<br \/>\ncomplied with. It is submitted that GDCR is part of development plan<br \/>\nand all inclusive of respective petitioners are bound to comply with<br \/>\nthe provisions of GDCR and have hoardings as per provisions of GDCR<br \/>\nmore particularly clause 21 of GDCR. It is submitted that none of the<br \/>\nrespective petitioners have put up hoardings  by complying with the<br \/>\nrequirement as per GDCR and therefore, action of the respondent<br \/>\nCorporation in pulling down \/ demolishing hoardings are in accordance<br \/>\nwith the provisions of GDCR, which is after following due procedure<br \/>\ni.e. after giving notice which is just and proper and not required to<br \/>\nbe interfered with. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss present<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Applications with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIn<br \/>\nreply, Mr.Mihir joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe respective petitioners has relied upon affidavit-in-rejoinder and<br \/>\ntried to explain notices which were issued in the year 2007 and it is<br \/>\nsubmitted that therefore, as such there is no suppression as alleged<br \/>\nby the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent   Corporation.<br \/>\nIt is submitted that due to administrative reshuffle, due to lack of<br \/>\ncomplete information, the Town Planning Department issued notice<br \/>\nunder section 245(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation<br \/>\nAct (herein after referred to as &#8216;BPMC Act&#8217;) in the<br \/>\nmonth of November, 2007 and same were replied by the respective<br \/>\nindividual petitioners which were with respect to individual<br \/>\nhoardings. It is submitted that after aforesaid notices were issued<br \/>\nin the month of November, 2007, respondent   Corporation issued<br \/>\nanother notice for renewal of licence fee on 13.03.2008 for the year<br \/>\n2007   2008 and the petitioners had sent cheques, but respondent<br \/>\nCorporation had not deposited the same and thereafter, demanded new<br \/>\ncheques from the respective petitioners zone wise and in response to<br \/>\nthat, respective petitioners submitted fresh cheques in March \/ April<br \/>\n2008.  It is submitted that thereafter, respondent   Corporation<br \/>\nissued another notice dated 11.08.2008 for yearly renewal of licence<br \/>\nfees for the year 2008 -2009 which can be said to be third notice.<br \/>\nHowever, thereafter considering representation of the respective<br \/>\npetitioners that till a decision is taken by the State Government as<br \/>\nregards the policy regulations and fees in respect of outdoor<br \/>\nhoardings, the Corporation would continue with the prevailing<br \/>\nposition and thereafter, respective petitioners paid renewal fees for<br \/>\nthe year 2008-2009 and thereafter,  no notice have been issued to the<br \/>\nrespective petitioners for demolition of hoardings. Therefore, it is<br \/>\nrequested to allow present Special Civil Applications.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned Advocates for the respective parties at length.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is required to be noted that when Special Civil<br \/>\nApplications came to be filed by the respective petitioners, it was<br \/>\nthe specific case on behalf of the respective petitioners that<br \/>\npulling down \/ demolition of hoardings and\/or proposed action of<br \/>\nCorporation in pulling down \/ demolition of the hoardings of<br \/>\nrespective petitioners is absolutely illegal and without giving any<br \/>\nprior notice.  However, considering affidavit-in-reply filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent Corporation aforesaid is factually incorrect.  Having<br \/>\npointed out in affidavit-in-reply with respect to the same and<br \/>\nissuance of notices \/ various correspondences between the respondent<br \/>\nCorporation and respective petitioner, respective petitioners have as<br \/>\nsuch admitted in affidavit-in-rejoinder with respect to earlier<br \/>\nnotices issued in the year 2007-2008 and correspondences. However,<br \/>\nthey have tried to explain said notices. Therefore, fact remains that<br \/>\nrespective petitioners have not stated correct facts before the Court<br \/>\nand have suppressed material fact with respect to earlier<br \/>\ncorrespondences and notices issued in the year 2007-2008 and on such<br \/>\nmisrepresentation and suppression of material fact they have obtained<br \/>\nex-parte ad-interim relief.  Thus, respective petitioners are not<br \/>\nentitled to extraordinary discretionary relief from this Court in<br \/>\nexercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\nRespective petitioners were supposed to and required to state correct<br \/>\nfacts. It appears that respective petitioners have not come with<br \/>\nclean hands which disentitles them discretionary and equitable relief<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis to be noted that sign boards and hoardings are governed and<br \/>\nregulated under Chapter 21 of GDCR of Rajkot Urban Development<br \/>\nAuthority (herein after referred to as &#8216;RUDA&#8217; for<br \/>\nshort),  which were sanctioned as a part of final development plan<br \/>\nvide Notification dated 20.02.2004 and the same have come in force<br \/>\nfrom 06.03.2004. That RUDA has fixed the design and size of the<br \/>\nhoardings under its Resolution No.1343.  As per Chapter 21 of GDCR,<br \/>\nonly authorized sings (hoardings) paging tower and telephone towers<br \/>\nwill be permitted and  anybody who wants to put up any hoardings,<br \/>\npaging tower and\/or telephone tower is required to comply with<br \/>\nChapter 21 of GDCR and required to apply licence and\/or apply for<br \/>\npermission as contemplated under Regulation No.21.1. It appears that<br \/>\nnone of the respective petitioners have applied for any permission \/<br \/>\nlicence as contemplated under Regulation no.21.1. From various<br \/>\ncorrespondence \/ notice referred to in affidavit-in-reply produced<br \/>\nalong with affidavit-in-reply, respective petitioners were time and<br \/>\nagain informed to comply with provisions of GDCR.  However, it<br \/>\nappears that none of the respective petitioners have complied with<br \/>\nthe same. It appears that as respective petitioners did not comply<br \/>\nwith provisions of GDCR and still continued to have hoardings<br \/>\ncontrary to provisions of GDCR, even respective petitioners were<br \/>\nserved with notice by the Assistant Town Planner, Rajkot Municipality<br \/>\nunder section 245(3) of BPMC Act and only thereafter, respondent<br \/>\nCorporation has started pulling down \/ demolishing hoardings which<br \/>\nare contrary to provisions of GDCR. It is to be noted that respective<br \/>\npetitioners did not produce Stability Certificate at the relevant<br \/>\ntime, which respective petitioners have produced subsequently.  All<br \/>\nthe aforesaid correspondences and notices were required to be<br \/>\nreferred to by the respective petitioners in the petitions which they<br \/>\nhave failed to refer to in the petitions. Even otherwise considering<br \/>\naforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, notices \/<br \/>\ncorrespondences produced along with affidavit-in-reply, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that action of the respondent Corporation is in any way illegal<br \/>\nand\/or arbitrary and\/or against principles of natural justice which<br \/>\ncalls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering aforesaid and<br \/>\nconsidering the fact that hoardings which are put by the respective<br \/>\npetitioners are not in consonance with provisions of GDCR and\/or<br \/>\nprovisions of RUDA and more particularly when respective petitioners<br \/>\nhave never applied for permission as required under Chapter 21 of<br \/>\nGDCR and when respondent   Corporation has initiated proceedings<br \/>\nfor pulling down \/ demolishing hoardings, it cannot be said that<br \/>\nrespondent-  Corporation has acted illegally and\/or arbitrarily.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of above and more particularly considering the fact that<br \/>\nrespective petitioners have suppressed material fact of notices \/<br \/>\ncorrespondences between respondent   Corporation and respective<br \/>\npetitioners and Association and they have not come with clean hands,<br \/>\nall these petitions deserve to be dismissed and ad-interim relief<br \/>\ngranted by this Court which respective petitioners have obtained by<br \/>\nsuppressing fact and making incorrect averments in the petitions,<br \/>\ndeserve to be vacated. Accordingly,  all these petitions are<br \/>\ndismissed with costs. Notice discharged in each of the petitions.<br \/>\nAd-interim relief granted stands vacated forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tAt<br \/>\nthis stage, Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespective petitioners prayed for extension of ad-interim<br \/>\nrelief granted earlier by this Court so as to enable respective<br \/>\npetitioners to approach higher forum, ad-interim relief granted<br \/>\nearlier is directed to be continued till 26.03.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>[M.R.Shah,J.]<\/p>\n<p>satish<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/664\/2009 9\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 664 of 2009 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 673 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH [&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-198648","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - 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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T00:24:40+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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T00:24:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1805,\"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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T00:24:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - 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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T00:24:40+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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T00:24:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010"},"wordCount":1805,"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\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010","name":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T00:24:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-vs-municipal-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Everest vs Municipal on 15 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/198648","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=198648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198648\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}