{"id":202565,"date":"2008-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-09T20:06:08","modified_gmt":"2016-10-09T14:36:08","slug":"nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10117\/2006\t 10\/ 10\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. 10117 of 2006\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nNAGDANBHAI\nHAMIRBHAI BORICHA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nG.S.R.T.CORPORATION - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nGK RATHOD for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMS\nAVANI S MEHTA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2008  \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 1.5.2004<br \/>\npassed by the labour court, Bhavnagr in reference (LCB) No.338 of<br \/>\n1999 whereby, the labour court has directed the corporation to<br \/>\nreinstate the workman. The labour court has, however, denied to grant<br \/>\nrelief of back wages and relief of continuity of service. Actually,<br \/>\nby the impugned award, the labour court has specifically denied the<br \/>\nsaid two reliefs and has passed direction only for reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved<br \/>\nby the said award denying the said two reliefs present petitioner ?<br \/>\nworkman has approached this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod appears for the petitioner and Ms. Mehta appears for the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nfacts relevant for the purpose of present petition are that, the<br \/>\npetitioner was working as driver under the respondent corporation and<br \/>\nbefore his service came to be terminated, he had put in service of<br \/>\nabout 10 years. It appears that the petitioner remained absent from<br \/>\n21.9.95 to 8.7.97 without prior intimation or without getting the<br \/>\nleave sanctioned and continued to remain absent until 8.7.1997. In<br \/>\nview of such continuous absence for such a long period, a charge<br \/>\nsheet was served on the petitioner ?  workman and a departmental<br \/>\ninquiry was conducted. After conducting departmental inquiry and<br \/>\nafter considering the findings of the inquiry officer, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority passed order dated 24.2.98 dismissing the<br \/>\npetitioner from service of the respondent corporation.\tAgainst the<br \/>\nsaid order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred<br \/>\ndepartmental appeal which also came to be rejected by order dated<br \/>\n18.5.99.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved<br \/>\nby the said order dated 18.5.99 of the first appellate authority, the<br \/>\npetitioner raised industrial dispute and approached labour court. The<br \/>\ndispute culminated into reference (LCB) No.338 of 1999 and after<br \/>\nconsidering the case of the appellant and the submissions of the<br \/>\nrespondent, the labour court passed award dated 1.5.2004 whereby, the<br \/>\nlabour court, though granted reinstatement, declined the relief of<br \/>\nback wages and continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod submitted that the petitioner is actually aggrieved by the<br \/>\ndenial of reliefs of back wages as well as continuity of service,<br \/>\nhowever, the petitioner will be satisfied, if, atleast, the relief of<br \/>\ncontinuity of service is granted. So as to support the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrequest for the relief of continuity of service, Mr. Rathod relied on<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the case between Pepsu<br \/>\nRoad Transport Corporation V\/s. Rawel Singh reported<br \/>\nin [(2008) 4 SCC 42].\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner, in this petition, has not produced any material or<br \/>\ndocument except annexing the copy of the impugned award. The petition<br \/>\ncame to be filed in December, 2005 and since then, the petitioner has<br \/>\nnot considered it necessary to produce the record forming part of the<br \/>\nreference (LCB) No.338 of 1999. Therefore, this court is constrained<br \/>\nto decide the matter only on the basis of the observations recorded<br \/>\nin the impugned award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom<br \/>\nperusal of the award, it transpires that before the labour court, the<br \/>\npetitioner had not challenged the legality of the inquiry. It is<br \/>\npertinent that in view of the continuous absence from 21.9.95 to<br \/>\n8.7.97, the petitioner was served with charge sheet and departmental<br \/>\ninquiry was initiated, however, the workman did not appear before the<br \/>\ninquiry officer also and the inquiry had to be conducted ex-parte.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\nmentioned above, the petitioner has admitted the legality of the<br \/>\ninquiry and has also admitted the findings of the inquiry officer<br \/>\nbefore the labour court. Thus, the issues and findings of the learned<br \/>\nlabour court regarding justifiability of the departmental inquiry<br \/>\nand\/or corporation&#8217;s decision of conducting ex-parte inquiry and\/or<br \/>\nfindings of the inquiry officer are not required to be examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\ncomes out from the award that the charge of continuous absence i.e.<br \/>\nfrom 21.1.95 to 8.7.97 without prior leave or sanction of the higher<br \/>\nauthority was established before the inquiry officer and it has been<br \/>\nestablished before the labour acourt also and it has been accepted as<br \/>\nproved, by labour court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis also noted by the labour court that during the period of absence,<br \/>\nthe petitioner had not submitted any report and\/or any medical<br \/>\ncertificate. Thus, it follows that the petitioner not only failed to<br \/>\nbut also did not care to give any satisfactory explanation as regards<br \/>\nhis absence even after the charge sheet was served.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEven<br \/>\nduring the departmental inquiry also, he was not present and the<br \/>\nabsence continued beyond the period of charge sheet. In paragraph 7<br \/>\nof the impugned award, the labour court has recorded that, actually,<br \/>\nthe petitioner remained absent from 21.1.95 to 15.12.97 i.e. for<br \/>\nalmost 27 months. After having noticed that the petitioner workman<br \/>\nhad failed to submit any report explaining absence and had also not<br \/>\ncared to produce any medical evidence while he was absent and<br \/>\ncontinued his absence even after the charge sheet. The labour court<br \/>\nwas required to examine the order of penalty passed by the competent<br \/>\nauthority in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Upon<br \/>\nconsidering the aforesaid aspects the labour court considered it<br \/>\nappropriate to not grant the relief of back wages and to also deny<br \/>\nthe relief of continuity of service, though the court directed the<br \/>\nrespondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner on the ground that<br \/>\nthe penalty of termination from service was, in view of the court,<br \/>\nharsh and disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to<br \/>\nhold that the labour court has committed any error which would<br \/>\njustify interference by this court in exercise of the powers under<br \/>\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This court would<br \/>\ninterfere with the exercise of discretionary power under section 11-A<br \/>\nby labour court when the power is exercised arbitrarily or without<br \/>\nhaving regard to facts of the case or without total non-application<br \/>\nof mind to the settled legal position or if the labour court has<br \/>\nexercised the power irrationally. However, in present case, impugned<br \/>\naward does not suffer from any such defect and Mr. Rathod has not<br \/>\nbeen able to point out any finding or direction in the award which<br \/>\nwould call this court to step-in and disturb any finding or<br \/>\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod has relied on the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court to<br \/>\nsupport the petitioner&#8217;s prayer for continuity of service and not for<br \/>\nassailing the award. Mr. Rathod appears to be conscious of the fact<br \/>\nthat in light of the facts of present case, the judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court would not help him to assail the award.  In the<br \/>\ncase before the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court the direction  of continuity of<br \/>\nservice was granted by the labour court  and was confirmed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court and the Hon&#8217;ble  Apex Court at that stage did not consider<br \/>\nit necessary  to set aside the said direction as the absence from<br \/>\nduty was only for few days whereas in present case the labour court<br \/>\nhas, in its direction and after examining the facts of the case and<br \/>\ngravity of proved misconduct, declined to grant<br \/>\nthe relief of continuity of service and since in present case<br \/>\nthe undisputed period of<br \/>\nabsence from duty by a driver of state transport corporation is of 27<br \/>\nmonths no fault can be found with the decision of the court in<br \/>\nconsidering the said default as serious misconduct and consequent<br \/>\nexercise of the discretion  of labour court to not grant relief of<br \/>\nback wages and\/or continuity of service to a person who is found to<br \/>\nbe so irregular, irresponsible and indisciplined. In the case before<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, the direction regarding continuity was<br \/>\ngranted,  and  thus,  the  Hon&#8217;ble  Court  did   not  disturb  said<br \/>\ndirection   whereas in present case the labour court  has not<br \/>\nconsidered it appropriate  to grant the relief  of continuity.  On<br \/>\nthe contrary the labour court has  expressly  denied  the said<br \/>\nrelief. In the facts of the case the said denial cannot be termed<br \/>\narbitrary and thus, the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court&#8217;s judgment would not help<br \/>\nthe petitioner in view of the material and substantial difference in<br \/>\nfacts of present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of this court the exercise of discretion by the learned labour<br \/>\ncourt to deny the relief of back wages and continuity of service is<br \/>\nneither arbitrary nor irrational nor it is in disregard to the<br \/>\nrecognized and well settled legal premise for exercising discretion.<br \/>\nHence, there is cause or justification to interfere with or disturb<br \/>\nthe discretion exercised by the labour court and its decision to deny<br \/>\nthe relief of back wages and continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt<br \/>\nthis stage, it is necessary to address one identical issue. It is<br \/>\nregarding gratuity. It transpires from the award that prior to his<br \/>\ntermination, the petitioner had put in service of 10 years. It is<br \/>\nclear that his service was terminated on account of absentism and no<br \/>\nnotice about any loss to the corporation or for forfeiture of<br \/>\ngratuity appears to have been issued by the corporation until now.<br \/>\nThe petitioner&#8217;s service was not terminated for any riotous or<br \/>\ndisorderly conduct or for any act of violence or for an offence<br \/>\ninvolving moral turpitude and that therefore, in view of this court,<br \/>\nit would not be just or equitable to wipe out 10 years of his service<br \/>\nso far as gratuity is concerned. Hence, it is clarified that though<br \/>\nthe relief of continuity is not granted, the petitioner shall be<br \/>\nentitled for gratuity for the said 10 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, on overall consideration of facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthis case, present petition is not accepted so far as the rejection<br \/>\nor denial of relief for continuity of service and back wages is<br \/>\nconcerned. Actually the petitioner gave-up, during the hearing of<br \/>\npetition, the claim for back wages. In any case the said claim is not<br \/>\naccepted by this court also and the petition is, thus, disallowed and<br \/>\ndisposed of with the aforesaid clarification. Notice discharged. No<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.M.Thaker,<br \/>\nJ.] <\/p>\n<p>kdc<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10117\/2006 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10117 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-202565","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1653,\"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\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008"},"wordCount":1653,"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\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008","name":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-09T14:36:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagdanbhai-vs-the-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagdanbhai vs The on 6 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202565","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=202565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}