{"id":203146,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-16T23:31:02","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T18:01:02","slug":"dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/103\/2011\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 103 of 2011\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9558 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 127 of 2011\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9582 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDHARMSHIBHAI\nGANDUBHAI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THRO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPP MAJMUDAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR SHAKTI S JADEJA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR NJ\nSHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/01\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpresent appeals arise against the common judgement and order dated<br \/>\n\t13.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the<br \/>\n\tconcerned Special Civil Application, whereby the petitions have been<br \/>\n\tallowed and the award of the Labour Court is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave heard Mr.Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants<br \/>\n\tat length.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcontention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the learned<br \/>\n\tSingle Judge was more guided by the aspects of delay and it has been<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that even if the findings recorded by the learned Single<br \/>\n\tJudge is considered for the breach of section 25F of the Industrial<br \/>\n\tDisputes Act (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;), there is no<br \/>\n\tconsideration whatsoever by the learned Single Judge for the breach<br \/>\n\tof sections 25G &amp; H, which has been found by the Labour Court.<br \/>\n\tIt was therefore submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court<br \/>\n\teven if maintained on the said aspects, the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with.  It was also<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that on the aspects of delay, at the most, the Labour<br \/>\n\tCourt could decline the backwages which came to be denied in the<br \/>\n\tpresent case and the learned counsel also submitted that the<br \/>\n\tappellants are not pressing for continuity in service and they would<br \/>\n\tbe satisfied if the reinstatement is maintained.  He therefore<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be<br \/>\n\tinterfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\tmay record that the learned Single Judge has elaborately considered<br \/>\n\tthe facts which are at para 19.  The another aspects is that the<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge upon the material on record, after considering<br \/>\n\tthe award of the Labour Court, has found that there was delay of<br \/>\n\tabout 19 years in raising the dispute and therefore, the matter is<br \/>\n\trequired to be examined from that point of view.  The aspects of<br \/>\n\tbreach of provisions of section 25F of the Act is concerned, it is<br \/>\n\tby now well settled that the burden is upon the workman to prove<br \/>\n\tthat he had worked for 240 days continuously in the last preceding<br \/>\n\tyear prior to the termination.  The case of the respondent before<br \/>\n\tthe Labour Court was that the workman had abandoned the work, but<br \/>\n\tthe Labour Court was guided by the consideration that even if the<br \/>\n\tworkman had abandoned the job, it was required for the employer to<br \/>\n\tsend an intimation for such purpose and therefore, it cannot be said<br \/>\n\tthat the workman had abandoned the job.  In our view, even if such<br \/>\n\taspect remains, then also the workman would not get away from the<br \/>\n\tliability to prove that he had continuously worked for 240 days if<br \/>\n\the was to assert the right based on the alleged breach of section<br \/>\n\t25F of the Act.  No material is produced on record to substantiate<br \/>\n\tthe said contention and the Labour Court on surmises and conjectures<br \/>\n\thad drawn the adverse inference.  Therefore, it is rightly found<br \/>\n\tthat when it was not proved that the workman had completed 240 days,<br \/>\n\tthe breach of the provisions of section 25F is not rightly concluded<br \/>\n\tby the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis true that in the impugned judgement no observations are made for<br \/>\n\tthe alleged breach of section 25G &amp; H of the Act for which the<br \/>\n\tfinding is recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award.  We<br \/>\n\thave considered the award and more particularly the relevant<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded by the Labour Court in the said award.  It appears<br \/>\n\tthat except bare statement of the workman that the persons joined<br \/>\n\tthe service afterwards were retained, no other evidence whatsoever<br \/>\n\tis produced.  Even that statement made in the deposition by the<br \/>\n\tworkman can be said as vague as anything inasmuch as no names of any<br \/>\n\tsuch workman are given by the appellants herein.  Therefore, in<br \/>\n\tabsence of the details of the name, atleast any of such workman who<br \/>\n\twere retained in service, the right as sought to be canvassed under<br \/>\n\tsection 25G &amp; H of the Act has been wrongly accepted by the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court, just on a mere circumstance that the seniority list<br \/>\n\twas not maintained as per the relevant Gujarat Rules.  It deserves<br \/>\n\tto be recorded that even if the right under section 25G and H of the<br \/>\n\tAct is independently to be considered, than the rights available<br \/>\n\tunder section 25F of the Act, burden will be upon the workman to<br \/>\n\tprove that the juniors were retained in service and the principles<br \/>\n\tof last come first go was not maintained.   Unless the names are<br \/>\n\tgiven in the deposition, it cannot be said that the burden was<br \/>\n\tdischarged.  Further, no details are stated about those persons who<br \/>\n\twere retained or whether any one by name whether was subsequently<br \/>\n\tengaged in the deposition of the workman concerned.  Therefore, the<br \/>\n\tadverse inference recorded by the Labour Court could only be said as<br \/>\n\tsurmises and conjectures without their being any warrant in law.<br \/>\n\tMerely because the seniority list was not maintained, ipso facto<br \/>\n\twould not result into the breach of the provisions of section 25 G &amp;<br \/>\n\tH of the Act.  But it would be required for the workman to bring the<br \/>\n\tevidence on record stating that a particular junior by name was not<br \/>\n\tretrenched but he was retrenched or   a particular person by name<br \/>\n\twas offered reemployment though he was junior and he was not offered<br \/>\n\treemployment.  It is only thereafter, the burden may shift to the<br \/>\n\temployer to prove that the persons so named as junior was neither in<br \/>\n\tfact junior or by giving date of appointment or otherwise.  If the<br \/>\n\tburden which falls upon the workman was not satisfactorily<br \/>\n\tdischarged, the aspect of non-maintenance of the seniority list<br \/>\n\twould hardly have an relevance nor the presumption or adverse<br \/>\n\tinference could be drawn as considered by the Labour Court in the<br \/>\n\timpugned award.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid, we find that the findings recorded by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge on the aspect of delay and the alleged breach<br \/>\n\tof the provisions of section 25F of the Act does not call for<br \/>\n\tinterference.  Further, even if the contention is considered of the<br \/>\n\tappellants  for the alleged breach of section 25G &amp; H of the<br \/>\n\tAct, in view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, we find that<br \/>\n\tthe findings recorded by the Labour Court in the award was perverse<br \/>\n\tto the record and hence, the award passed on the said finding also<br \/>\n\tcannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find that the<br \/>\n\tultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge of allowing the<br \/>\n\tpetition by setting aside the  award of the Labour Court does not<br \/>\n\tcall for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence,<br \/>\n\tall the appeals are meritless and therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> (JAYANT<br \/>\nPATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p> (J.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>UPADHYAYA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*bjoy<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/103\/2011 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 103 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9558 of 2009 To LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 127 of [&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-203146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T18:01:02+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T18:01:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1154,\"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\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T18:01:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 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":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T18:01:02+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T18:01:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":1154,"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\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011","name":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T18:01:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmshibhai-vs-state-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharmshibhai vs State on 21 January, 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\/203146","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=203146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}