{"id":205195,"date":"2008-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-21T02:10:29","modified_gmt":"2017-03-20T20:40:29","slug":"whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: K.A.Puj<\/div>\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\nFA\/2243\/1999\t 13\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 2243 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\tSd\/- \n \n====================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n====================================RAMESHRE\nB VERMA - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIRECTOR\nGENERAL OF POLICE & 1 - Defendants\n \n\n==================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR BHARAT JANI for Appellant. \nMRS\nVS PATHAK, AGP for Defendant No. 1. \nMS LILU K BHAYA for Defendant\nNo. 2. \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.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 02\/07\/2008 \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe
\n\tappellant \u00fd  original claimant has filed this appeal under Section
\n\t173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 challenging the judgment and
\n\taward dated 03.11.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident
\n\tClaims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 307 of 1990
\n\twhereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the respondent \u00fd
\n\tInsurance Company was directed to pay to the appellant a sum of
\n\tRs.50,500\/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the
\n\tpetition till the payment and proportionate cost of the petition.
\n\tThe appellant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000\/- for the
\n\tinjuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident which occurred on
\n\t01.09.1990.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis the case of the appellant that respondent No.1, the Director
\n\tGeneral of Police is the owner of vehicle \u00fd  Police Mobile van
\n\tbearing registration No. GUD 4153 and the respondent No.2 is the
\n\tInsurance Company with whom the said vehicle was insured.  The claim
\n\tpetition was filed by the appellant and he has produced various
\n\tdocuments along with the petition.  The respondent No.1 has filed
\n\this written statement at Exh. 48 and contended that the driver of
\n\tthe vehicle was driving the said vehicle as per the instructions of
\n\tthe appellant in slow speed and on correct side of the road and at
\n\tthat time, the mob of students were throwing stones and at the place
\n\tof incidence, there were ditches on the road and hence, the driver
\n\tof offending vehicle had lost his control over the said vehicle and
\n\tas a result, the said vehicle had fallen down in the ditch which was
\n\ton the left side of the road and thus the said accident was taken
\n\tplace.  It was, therefore, contended that the appellant was not
\n\tentitled to get any amount towards compensation.  It was further
\n\tcontended in the written statement that since the driver of the
\n\toffending vehicle was driving the said vehicle as per the
\n\tinstructions of the appellant, the appellant himself was responsible
\n\tand even on this ground also, the appellant was not entitled to any
\n\tamount of compensation.  The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company
\n\tfiled its written statement at Exh. 16 and inter alia, prayed for
\n\tdismissal of claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tlearned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has examined the
\n\tentire evidence on record, oral as well as written and after
\n\tappreciating the rival contentions of the parties as well as the
\n\trelevant documents, had partly allowed the claim petition and
\n\tawarded compensation of Rs.50,500\/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.
\n\tThis award is under challenge in the present appeal.  There is no
\n\tdispute about the fact that the respondent \u00fd  Insurance Company has
\n\tnot filed any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
\tBharat Jani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has
\n\tsubmitted that the amount of compensation of Rs.50,500\/- awarded by
\n\tthe Tribunal is arrived at as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\tFuture economic loss
\n\t:- 2,500 \/ 10% disability <\/p>\n
\t= 250 X 12 X 8
\n\t(multiplier) :- \tRs. 24,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tPresent loss of
\n\tincome :- \t\tRs. 6,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tMedical, diet,
\n\tconveyance and <\/p>\n
\tattendance charges
\n\tetc. :- \t\tRs.10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tPain, shock and
\n\tsuffering :- \t\tRs. 10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tTotal\t\t\t\t\t\t Rs.50,500\/-\t\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\t  \n\n\n\tMr.\n<\/pre>\n
\tJani has challenged the impugned award on the ground that multiplier
\n\tof 8 taken by the Tribunal is not just and proper.  The appellant
\n\twas serving as Police-Sub-Inspector in police department and on the
\n\tdate of accident, his age was 45 years and, therefore, the
\n\tappropriate multiplier to be applied for calculation for future loss
\n\tof income would be atleast 12 and not 8. For this purpose, he
\n\treferred to and relied on 2nd  Schedule for compensation
\n\tfor third party fatal accidents \/ injury cases claims prescribed
\n\tunder Section 163-A of the Act.  Since the appellant was at the age
\n\tof 45 years, multiplier mentioned therein is 13. He has, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted that multiplier of 12 is just and proper as against 8
\n\tadopted by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the Tribunal
\n\thas taken the future economic loss at the rate of Rs.2,500\/- on the
\n\tbasis of his salary on the date of accident, without considering the
\n\tfuture prospects of earning and increase in salary and other
\n\tincidental benefits.  The oral evidence of the appellant at Exh. 42
\n\twhere the appellant had deposed that on the date of evidence, his
\n\tsalary was Rs.7,000\/- per month was not taken into consideration by
\n\tthe Tribunal.  The Tribunal should have taken Rs.6,000\/- for
\n\tcalculating future loss of income and ought to have applied
\n\tmultiplier of 12 looking to the age of the appellant i.e. 45 years
\n\ton the date of the accident.  He has further submitted that the
\n\tTribunal should have also considered in their proper perspectives
\n\tthe injury certificate, the disability certificate and evidence of
\n\tDr. S.G. Patel to come to the correct conclusion in respect of
\n\tpermanent partial functional disability.  The disability certificate
\n\tat Exh.45 issued by Dr. S. G. Patel clearly shows that partial
\n\tpermanent functional disability is 21%.  The Tribunal has grossly
\n\terred in taking only 10% disability as a whole to arrive at future
\n\teconomic loss.  At least, as per the evidence of Dr. S. G. Patel at
\n\tExh.44, along with disability certificate at Exh. 45, the Tribunal
\n\tshould have taken disability at 15%.  He has further submitted that
\n\tthe Tribunal has also awarded only Rs.6,500\/- under the head of
\n\tpresent loss of income which is contrary to the evidence on record.
\n\tThe appellant had taken 5 months treatment after the date of
\n\taccident and, therefore, the present loss of income should have been
\n\ttaken at least of Rs.12,500\/- under this head.  The amount of
\n\tRs.10,000\/- awarded under the head medical expenses, diet, attendant
\n\tcharges and conveyance charges is also inadequate.  It should have
\n\tbeen increased at least to Rs.15,000\/-.  He has lastly submitted
\n\tthat the amount of Rs.10,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal under the
\n\thead pain, shock and suffering should have also been increased to
\n\tRs.15,000\/- looking to the injury of upper and left tibia  – intra
\n\tarticular with head injury, 15 days hospitalization and prolonged
\n\ttreatment thereafter for about five months.  Considering all these
\n\taspects, Mr. Jani has submitted that the appellant is entitled to
\n\tthe compensation of Rs.1 Lac and hence, enhancement to the extent of
\n\tabout Rs.49,500\/- is required to be made.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tsupport of his submissions, Mr. Jani relied on the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum and others
\n\tV\/s. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, 42 (1) GLR 593
\n\tand the decision of this Court in the case of National
\n\tInsurance Company Limited V\/s. Mangiben Bhikhabhai Vasava and
\n\tothers, 47 (4) GLR 2804.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
\tLilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company,
\n\ton the other hand, has strongly objected to any sort of enhancement
\n\tand submitted that appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost.  She
\n\thas submitted that the claim made by the appellant is highly
\n\texaggerated and since the respondent \u00fd  Insurance Company has not
\n\tfiled any appeal, she restrains herself from submitting that claim
\n\tis bogus one and the appellant himself is responsible for occurrence
\n\tof the accident.  She has further submitted that there is no
\n\tevidence with regard to the age of the appellant.  In absence of any
\n\tevidence with regard to the age, the multiplier adopted by the
\n\tTribunal is just and proper.  There is no evidence with regard to
\n\tthe income of the appellant at the time of recording of his
\n\tevidence.  The Tribunal is, therefore, justified in adopting the
\n\tfigure on the basis of the pay slip produced by the appellant on the
\n\tdate of accident.  So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal for
\n\tfuture loss of income, medical diet, conveyance charges as well as
\n\tpain,shock and suffering is concerned, no interference is called for
\n\tby this Court as the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the
\n\tmatter and arrived at the just and proper conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith
\n\tregard to the multiplier, she relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court in the case of The Managing Director, TNSTC V\/s.
\n\tSripriya and others, 2007 (4) Scale 222 wherein the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court has held that the multiplier method involves the
\n\tascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having
\n\tregard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the
\n\tmultiplicand by an appropriate multiplier.  The choice of the
\n\tmultiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the
\n\tclaimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what
\n\tcapital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a
\n\tstable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual
\n\tinterest.  In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the
\n\tfact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over
\n\tthe period for which the dependency is expected to last.  The Court
\n\tfurther held that the highest multiplier has to be for the age group
\n\tof 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts
\n\tindependently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person
\n\tin the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age.
\n\tConsidering the age of the deceased in the case before the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court, the Court held that appropriate multiplier would be\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  In that case, the deceased age was 37 years.  The Court took
\n\tthe view that the appropriate multiplier would be 12.  In the
\n\tpresent case, the appellant’s age is 45 years and hence, multiplier
\n\tof 8 taken by the Tribunal is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n
\tTaking
\n\tover all view of the matter, she has strongly urged that no case is
\n\tmade out by the appellant for enhancement of the amount of
\n\tcompensation and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n
\tV. S. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
\n\trespondent No.1 supported the case of the appellant and submitted
\n\tthat the claim of enhancement made by the appellant is just and
\n\tproper and the same should have been accepted by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving
\n\theard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and
\n\thaving considered the documents produced before the Tribunal as well
\n\tas before this Court, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal has
\n\tnot adequately compensated the appellant and committed an error
\n\twhile adopting the multiplier at 8 and also considering the future
\n\teconomic loss only to the extent of Rs.2,500\/-.  It is true that no
\n\tdirect evidence with regard to the age of the appellant is produced.
\n\t However, from the circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that
\n\tthe appellant was aged 45 years old at the time of accident. When
\n\this evidence was taken in 1997, he has stated his age as 52 years.
\n\tHe retired in 2003 and the age of retirement is 58 years.  In 1990,
\n\the was 45 years and if 13 years are added, then the retirement age
\n\tof 58 years would come in 2003.  Even in the disability certificate,
\n\this age is mentioned which is also tallied with the age stated by
\n\thim.  Thus, the appellant’s claim cannot be rejected only on the
\n\tground that birth certificate was not produced.  Once it is accepted
\n\tthat he is of 45 years of age at the time of accident and his
\n\tretirement age is 58 years, in that case, based on 2nd
\n\tSchedule, the multiplier should have been taken at 12.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\torder of the Tribunal deserves an interference by this Court even on
\n\tthe ground of amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal on
\n\tthe basis of future economic loss. Considering the appellant’s
\n\tsalary on the date of accident and without considering the future
\n\tprospects of earning and increase in salary and other incidental
\n\tbenefits, the claim of the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on
\n\tthe ground that no evidence is produced by the appellant at the time
\n\tof recording of his evidence.  It is, however, submitted by Mr. Jani
\n\tthat the Tribunal has taken into consideration the pay slip produced
\n\tby the appellant on the date of accident which is of Rs.2451\/-.  In
\n\t1997, when the appellant’s evidence was recorded, he has stated that
\n\this income was of Rs.7,000\/- per month.  The oral evidence produced
\n\tby the appellant assumes significance and it cannot be discarded.
\n\tIn the case of National Insurance Company Limited V\/s. Mangiben
\n\tBhikhabhai Vasava and others, 47 (4) GLR 2804 (supra), this
\n\tCourt has taken the view that although, there is no documentary
\n\tproof of the income as well as the age of the deceased, in the
\n\tpost-mortem note, his age has been shown as 40 years and,
\n\ttherefore, the Tribunal has taken his age to be in between 40 to 45
\n\tyears.  Therefore, the multiplier of 14 cannot be said to be
\n\texcessive.  Thus the due weightage was given to the oral evidence
\n\tand on that basis, the multiplier as well as the income was
\n\tconsidered by this Court.  Considering the oral evidence of the
\n\tappellant and applying the multiplier of 12 years, the Court
\n\testimates the amount of Rs.53,500\/- under the head of future
\n\teconomic loss.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tabsence of any appeal by the Insurance Company, the Court is not
\n\taccepting the arguments canvassed by Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya that the
\n\tclaim is bogus or exaggerated.  The decision relied on by Ms. Bhaya
\n\tfor the purpose of multiplier would not help the case of the
\n\tInsurance Company.  Even in the case of Kaushnuma Begum and
\n\tothers V\/s. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (Supra),
\n\tthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in calculating the amount of
\n\tcompensation, the structured formula provided in the 2nd
\n\tSchedule of the Motor Vehicles Act may be adopted.  Though, it was
\n\tformulated for the purpose of Section 163-A of the Act, it is the
\n\tsafer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation then any
\n\tother method.  Based on this formula, the multiplier is required to
\n\tbe adopted at 12.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith
\n\tregard to the other points canvassed by Mr. Jani, the Court is not
\n\tconvinced and no enhancement is required on those grounds.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering
\n\tthe entire facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation
\n\tawarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.50,500\/- to Rs.80,000\/-
\n\tand this enhancement is made considering the submissions made in
\n\trespect of increase in multiplier as well as future economic loss.
\n\tThus, the appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.80,000\/-
\n\tas against Rs.50,500\/- awarded by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tappeal is, therefore, partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K.\n<\/p>\n
A. PUJ, J.]<\/p>\n
Savariya <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 Bench: K.A.Puj FA\/2243\/1999 13\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2243 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Sd\/- ==================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2. […]<\/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-205195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - 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\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-20T20:40:29+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T20:40:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2387,\"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\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T20:40:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 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":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - 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\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-20T20:40:29+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T20:40:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008"},"wordCount":2387,"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\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008","name":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T20:40:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-director-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs Director on 2 July, 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\/205195","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=205195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}