{"id":20690,"date":"2010-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-31T17:50:08","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T12:20:08","slug":"noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/582\/2010\t 2\/ 9\tORDER \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. 582 of 2010\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNOOR\nALI DECEASED SINCE THROUGH JAYABEN NOOR ALI &amp; 3 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPASCHIM\nGUJARAT VIJ CO.LTD THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nADIL R MIRZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 4. \nNone for Defendant(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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 1st<br \/>\nSeptember 2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\nKhambhaliya in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nappellants herein are the original opponents in the aforesaid Special<br \/>\nCivil Suit No. 2 of 1995 and opponent-company is the original<br \/>\nplaintiff. The facts which emerge from the record are that on 7th<br \/>\nApril 1994 when the opponent-plaintiff visited the premises of the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s Ice factory for the purpose of inspection-checking, the<br \/>\nappellant was found committing theft of electricity by tempering with<br \/>\nthe electricity meter and connected equipments. Hence, after<br \/>\nfollowing the procedure and completing the formalities, a<br \/>\nsupplementary bill for a sum Rs. 5,60,116.83 was raised by applying<br \/>\nprescribed A X B X C X D formula. Since the appellants did not<br \/>\nrespond to the said supplementary bill and did not make payment,<br \/>\nabove mentioned suit being Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1995 came to<br \/>\nbe filed. In response to the notices issued by the learned Trial<br \/>\nCourt, the appellants-original opponents filed their reply and<br \/>\nopposed the suit. Learned Trial Court, framed bellow mentioned 7<br \/>\nissues:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\tthe plaintiff is entitled to get relief as alleged in the plaint?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\tthe plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as alleged?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\tthe plaintiff is entitled to get interest ? If yes, at what rate?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\ttheir Civil Court has jurisdiction to try present suit?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\tthe suit is barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary<br \/>\n\tparties?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether<br \/>\n\tthe defendants prove that they are not responsible to pay suit<br \/>\n\tamount as alleged?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhat<br \/>\n\torder and decree?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAfter<br \/>\nconsidering the oral and documentary evidence available on record,<br \/>\nthe learned Trial Court concluded and replied the issue nos. 1 to 4<br \/>\nin affirmative and issue Nos. 5 and 6 in negative. The learned Trial<br \/>\nCourt accepted the evidence of the opponent company and came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the opponent company was entitled to receive the<br \/>\npayment of the supplementary bill and that therefore the learned<br \/>\nTrial Court    passed the impugned judgment and decree directing the<br \/>\nappellants to pay Rs. 5,60,116.83 with interest at the rate of 9%.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellants-opponents<br \/>\nare before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mirza learned advocate has appeared for the appellants and submitted<br \/>\nthat the learned Trial Court has committed error in appreciating<br \/>\ndeposition of the witnesses. He has submitted that the testing of the<br \/>\nmeter was carried out in absence of the appellants and that therefore<br \/>\nthe report ought not to have been relied upon. He has submitted that<br \/>\neven the documents  pertaining to the checking and inspection process<br \/>\ndo not bear signature of any independent witness and that therefore<br \/>\nthe said document also could not have been relied upon. Mr. Mirza<br \/>\nlearned advocate has also submitted that the impugned judgment and<br \/>\ndecree is contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Mirza  has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the establishment of the appellants is a seasonal<br \/>\nestablishment and appellants had made several applications requesting<br \/>\nthe opponent-company to consider the appellant&#8217;s establishment as<br \/>\nseasonal establishment. He has submitted that even the witness of the<br \/>\nopponent-company has admitted during his cross-examination that the<br \/>\nappellants had made applications for treating the appellant&#8217;s unit as<br \/>\nseasonal unit. He has submitted that the calculation sheet produced<br \/>\nby the opponent reflecting the details of the calculation quantifying<br \/>\nthe amount for the supplementary bill suffered from apparent errors,<br \/>\nhowever learned Trial Court has failed to consider the said aspect.<br \/>\nMr. Mirza learned advocate also attempted to raise contention about<br \/>\nthe dispute regarding the working days shown in the calculation<br \/>\nsheet. Any other contention has not been raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the appellants&#8217; contention about alleged error in calculation<br \/>\nis concerned, it deserves to be noted that after the appellants<br \/>\nreceived the supplementary bill at no point of time appellants had<br \/>\nraised any dispute and\/or objection with regard to the supplementary<br \/>\nbill or with regard to the quantification of the amount or even with<br \/>\nregard to the application of A X B X C X D formula or even with<br \/>\nregard to any apparent calculation mistake in quantifying the bill<br \/>\namount. Not only any dispute with regard to any of the aforesaid<br \/>\nissues was raised after the supplementary bill was issued, no dispute<br \/>\nwas raised on any of the said disputes even until the suit came to be<br \/>\nfiled, <\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nappellants not only did not raise any objection with regard to the<br \/>\nsupplementary bill, but the appellants also did not prefer any<br \/>\nproceeding e.g. appeal before the appellate authority and\/or before<br \/>\nthe Electricity Inspector with regard to the alleged error in the<br \/>\nsupplementary bill or in connection with any of the issues which are<br \/>\nnow being raised. Furthermore, such contentions were not effectively<br \/>\nraised and substantiated even before the learned Trial Court and now<br \/>\nthe said issues are sought to be raised in this appeal. For the said<br \/>\nadditional reason also the said contention cannot be accepted at this<br \/>\nstage.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the appellants&#8217; contention that at the time of the<br \/>\nchecking\/inspection the squad did not obtain signature of any<br \/>\nindependent witness on the checking report is concerned, it needs to<br \/>\nbe noted that the opponent-company has produced on record the<br \/>\n Kabulatnama  signed by one of the appellants. As regards<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s contention that the appellant-opponent company had<br \/>\napplied for status of seasonal establishment and that therefore the<br \/>\nbill should have been raised treating the appellant as seasonal<br \/>\nconcern. This is wholly misconceived contention and cannot be<br \/>\naccepted. A concern does not become a seasonal concern and does not<br \/>\nget such status merely by making application\/s. There is no dispute<br \/>\nabout the fact that the application\/s was-were never entertained,<br \/>\nmuch less granted. The contention has to be noted only for rejecting<br \/>\nit. As regards the another misconceived contention viz. with regard<br \/>\nto alleged error in calculating the working days (as mentioned in the<br \/>\ncalculation-sheet) it needs to be mentioned that after receipt of the<br \/>\nbill such dispute was never raised until the suit was filed. Further,<br \/>\nthe appellant could not effectively press in service and\/or<br \/>\nsubstantiate the said contention in view of the fact that such<br \/>\ncontention was not even raised before the learned Trial Court and was<br \/>\nnot incorporated in the written statement and no material was placed<br \/>\non record before the learned Trial Court. When one of the appellants<br \/>\nhad signed the Kabulatnama, it is not open to the appellant to cast<br \/>\nshadow on the checking report. Such dispute would slip into<br \/>\ninsignificance after their own Kabulatnama.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the dispute that the meter testing was conducted in absence of<br \/>\nthe appellants or their representatives is concerned, it deserves to<br \/>\nbe noted that as per the prescribed procedure three intimations are<br \/>\nrequired to be given to the appellants to remain present at the time<br \/>\nof meter testing. Such intimations were given. However the appellants<br \/>\npreferred not to attend the meter testing process and chose to remain<br \/>\nabsent. Ultimately the meter testing was conducted in absence of the<br \/>\nappellants. When a consumer (here the appellants) choose to remain<br \/>\nabsent at the time of meter testing process despite intimations<br \/>\nhaving been given, it is not open to the consumer (here the<br \/>\nappellants) to raise any objection with regard to the procedure on<br \/>\nthe ground of lack of opportunity and the learned Trial Court is<br \/>\nright and justified in not entertaining such objection or dispute and<br \/>\nin not finding any fault with the process of meter testing on the<br \/>\nground that it was conducted in absence of the appellants. The<br \/>\nappellant cannot be permitted to take advantage, or rather<br \/>\ndisadvantage, of its own conduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tBesides<br \/>\nthis, what is more important is that on the basis of the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord it emerges, and the learned Trial Court has rightly noticed<br \/>\nthat at the time of checking the squad had detected that both the<br \/>\nseals applied to the body of the meter  were in broken condition. The<br \/>\nchecking squad also noticed that the seals were re-fixed after having<br \/>\nbeen opened and were applied by using some material like  araldite.<br \/>\nThe paper seals were also found tempered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nappellant-opponent could not dispute the said evidence and in fact a<br \/>\n Kabulatnama  of the appellants was placed on record before the<br \/>\nCourt. In the facts and circumstances there was no reason for the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Court to not to believe the said evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tOn<br \/>\nperusal of the finding of the learned Trial Court it emerges that the<br \/>\nplaintiff-opponent company did establish before the Court that the<br \/>\nopponent-appellant had indulged in committing theft of electricity by<br \/>\ntempering the meter and connected equipments. Having reached such<br \/>\nconclusion, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of<br \/>\nthe opponent-company.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\nappellants have failed to make out any case to interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and decree and has also failed to successfully<br \/>\nassail the judgment and decree dated 1st September 2009<br \/>\npassed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya in Special<br \/>\nCivil Suit No. 2 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\nappeal, therefore fails and the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.M.THAKER,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Suresh*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/582\/2010 2\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 582 of 2010 ========================================================= NOOR ALI DECEASED SINCE THROUGH JAYABEN NOOR ALI &amp; 3 &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTD [&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-20690","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>Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 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\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-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=\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-31T12:20:08+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-31T12:20:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1527,\"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\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-31T12:20:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 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":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 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\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-31T12:20:08+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-31T12:20:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010"},"wordCount":1527,"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\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010","name":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-31T12:20:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noor-vs-paschim-on-19-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Noor vs Paschim on 19 April, 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\/20690","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=20690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}