{"id":206922,"date":"2011-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-15T18:09:41","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T12:39:41","slug":"surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/877\/2006\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 877 of 2006\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10265 of 2006\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 878 of 2006\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10266 of 2006\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI\n   sd\/-\n \n\n\n        \n\n \n\n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH   \n    sd\/-        \n\n \n\n\n=========================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To
\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\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<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
=================================================<\/p>\n
SURMOUNT
\nLABORATORIES PVT.LTD. – Appellant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
MINAKSHIBEN
\nC MERCHANT – Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
=================================================
\nAppearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR JV JAPEE for Appellant(s) :\n<\/p>\n
1,
\nMR PH PATHAK for Respondent(s) :\n<\/p>\n
1,
\n================================================= <\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH<\/p>\n
Date<\/a>
\n: 29\/8\/2011 <\/p>\n
CAV
\n(COMMON) JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel Mr J V Japee for the appellant and learned
\ncounsel Mr P H Pathak for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts of the above two Letters Patent Appeals are though related to
\ndifferent employees of the appellant Company\/Industry, the facts of
\nthe cases are almost similar and as common question of facts and
\ndisputes are involved, we have heard them together and adjudicate the
\nsame by way of this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tIn
\nLPA No.877 of 2006 the appellant has challenged the order dated
\n20.6.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge  in Special Civil
\nApplication No.10265 of 2006 and the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by
\nthe Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference  (L.C.B.)No.171 of 2000.
\nLikewise, in LPA No.878 of 2006 the appellant has challenged the
\norder dated 20.6.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge  in Special
\nCivil Application No.10266 of 2006 and the order dated 28.4.2005
\npassed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference  (L.C.B.)No.170 of
\n2000 directing to reinstate the respondents in service with full back
\nwages.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe
\nfacts of the case in brief are that the appellant Surmount
\nLaboratories Pvt. Ltd. is a Pharmaceutical Industry producing various
\ntypes of allopathic medicines having its Factory at
\nAnkleshwar. The respondents had joined service with the
\nappellant in the beginning of June, 1983 as Machine Operators.
\n The appellant company was paying to its workmen the annual
\nincrements and other service benefits.  The respondents had raised
\ndemand of increase of annual increment and for treating them as
\nskilled workers for which negotiations were going on.  Meanwhile, to
\nbring undue pressure on the appellant company, the respondents of
\nboth the appeals, in collusion with each other, refused to discharge
\nthe day-to-day duties.  The appellant had, therefore, given show
\ncause notice dated 7.8.1999 to the respondents and as the explanation
\ngiven by the respondents was not satisfactory,  charge sheet was
\nissued on 17.8.1999 to initiate disciplinary proceedings and the
\nrespondents were placed under suspension pending inquiry.  The
\ninquiry was initiated and concluded in consonance with the principles
\nof natural justice by giving sufficient and adequate opportunity to
\nthe respondents. The Inquiry Officer had given report wherein the
\nallegations were held to be proved. Thereafter the appellant had
\ngiven a second show cause notice dated 14.1.2000 along with the
\nreport of the Inquiry Officer and as the explanation given by the
\nrespondents was  not found satisfactory, the appellant had passed
\norder dated 9.2.2000 discharging the respondents from service. The
\nappellant had paid all the legal dues by Account Payee cheque to the
\nrespondents.  Since the general demand of the workmen was pending
\nbefore the Labour Court, the appellant had filed an approval
\napplication under section 33-2(B) before the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe
\nrespondents have raised industrial disputes challenging the order of
\ndischarge from service and claiming reinstatement with full back
\nwages.  The case of the respondents is that they were victimized by
\nthe appellant as they have raised the demand as stated before the
\nLabour Court and as such according to the respondents, they had never
\nrefused to discharge their day-to-day duties.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the learned Single
\nJudge has erred in believing the case of the respondents that they
\nwere victimized and wrongly held that the disciplinary action taken
\nagainst the workmen was with ulterior motive and that the reasons
\ngiven by the learned Single Judge in support of the allegations of
\nvictimization are not borne out from the award passed by the Labour
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tWe
\nhave carefully perused the entire award and all the relevant papers
\nforthcoming on the record.  Referring the awards dated 28.4.2005
\npassed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, it is the specific finding of
\nthe Labour Court that in June, 1983, the respondents workmen had
\njoined services of the appellant as Helper-unskilled Labourer and
\nafter completion of one year of their service, the respondents were
\ndischarging their duties as skilled Labourer as had been directed by
\nthe appellant.  In spite of that, the fact remains that the appellant
\nhad never given the designations and pay of skilled labourer to the
\nrespondents.  On this issue, the respondents had raised their demands
\nbefore the appellant and on the basis of the incident dated 7.8.1999,
\nthe respondents were given charge sheet dated 17.8.1999 and after
\ndisciplinary inquiry the respondents were discharged from service. It
\nfurther appears that the Labour Court also found that termination of
\nservice of the workmen was void ab initio and
\nthe Labour Court has further given their specific finding that the
\ncase of the workmen is a case of malafide and arbitrary exercise of
\nthe power by the appellant management.  Thus there appears no force
\nin the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that
\nthe findings given by the learned Single Judge is independent finding
\nof facts and the allegations of victimization are not borne out from
\nthe award passed by the Labour Court.  The learned Single Judge had,
\nat length, covered all the points considering the award passed by the
\nLabour Court and relevant paragraphs No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order
\ndated 20.6.2006 passed in Special Civil Applications No.10265 of 2006
\nwith Special Civil Application No.10266 of 2006 which is extracted
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
“6.\tI
\nhave considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Japee
\nand I have perused the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch. The
\nLabour Court has discussed the statement and written statement filed
\nby both the parties. The Labour Court has also considered the
\ndecision relied by both the parties. Thereafter, issue has been
\nframed whether punishment of discharge by order dated 9th
\nFebruary 2000 is unjustified or harsh or not and whether workmen are
\nentitled for the reinstatement with continuity  in service and
\nwhether workmen are entitled for full back wages of interim period or
\nnot. These issues were framed by the Labour Court and in paragraph
\n18, Labour Court has given detail reason in support of its
\nconclusion. Initially, both the workmen were working as unskilled
\nworkmen, but by experience, according to them, they becomes skilled
\nworkmen. Therefore, both the workmen made request to the petitioner
\nthat while comparison to the work of other workmen, they are also
\nperforming skilled work. Therefore, they are entitled for the salary
\nas a skilled employees. The another request was made by the workmen
\nthat annual increments are not giving regularly and to give slip of
\nover time wages. This request was turned down by the petitioner.
\nUltimately, both the workmen were approached to the Labour Union and
\nLabour Union has filed complaint in respect to the demand made by
\nboth the workmen. Therefore, sudden reaction of employer was that
\nthey orally terminated the services immediately on 20th
\nJune 1999 by oral order. Therefore, against that oral order of
\ntermination, both the workmen raised industrial disputes before the
\nAssistant Labour Commissioner, Bharuch to reinstate with continuity
\nof service with full back wages of interim period. A moment that
\nnotice received from the Conciliation Officer, they realise their
\nmistake as hurriedly services were terminated without following due
\nprocess of law, therefore, immediately, petitioner was agreed to
\nreinstate both the workmen in service with full back wages of interim
\nperiod before the Conciliation Officer. Then both the workmen were
\nallowed to resume duty and back wages was paid. Then both the workmen
\nraised industrial disputes through Labour Commissioner about their
\ndemand and that demand was raised by the Labour Union before the
\nappropriate authority immediately. It is a second reaction of the
\npetitioner to serve charge-sheet on 7th August 1999 and
\nsuspended to both the workmen. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was
\nserved dated 7th August 1999 within a short period after
\nreinstatement and inquiry was completed on 14th January
\n2000, calling the explanation from the workmen and then terminated
\nthe service of workmen by order dated 9th February 2000.
\nThus, this was back ground which ultimately with ulterior motive, the
\nmanagement has taken action against the workmen on the ground that
\nthey disobey the order and direction of the superior and they refused
\nto except the letter of the petitioner. This being a show create to
\ndischarge both the workmen and merely\/empty formality was followed
\nthat after due process of law, order of discharge has been passed.
\nThe legality and validity of departmental inquiry was not challenged
\nby the workmen and finding given by inquiry officer also not much in
\ndispute. But, Labour Court has considered this back ground in his
\nmind while exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has exercised the power under
\nSection 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that
\nallegations which were made against the workmen are not such so
\nserious which requires extreme penalty of discharge. The past conduct
\nhas been totally ignored by the petitioner and it is not the case of
\nthe petitioner that in past, any misconduct has been committed by
\neither of workmen. Therefore, Labour Court has considered this aspect
\nwhile exercising the power and come to the conclusion that it is
\nclear case of victimise and unfair labour pracise adopted by the
\npetitioner. This being a clear case of legal victimization. The
\nLabour Court has also appreciated that reply to charge-sheet and
\nreply to show cause notice by the workmen also not properly
\nappreciated by the competent authority. Therefore, once the employer
\nwith clear motive and that clear intention discharged the workmen and
\ndepartmental inquiry is merely a formality which can be understood by
\nthe independent authority being a Labour Court that on what basis and
\nin which manner and what purpose the order of discharge has been
\npassed by the employer. The petitioner has not proved the gainful
\nemployment of either of workmen. Both the workmen were deposed before
\nthe Labour Court that after the discharge order, they remained
\nwithout work and inspite of the sincere efforts made by both of them,
\nthey are not able to obtain any work \/ job and they remained
\nunemployed. In light of this evidence before the Labour Court and
\ncoming to the conclusion that discharge order has been passed by the
\npetitioner to remove the workmen on the ground that why they raised
\nhands before the petitioner for making some demands about their legal
\nrights. This punishment being a clear answer of demand raised by the
\nworkmen before the petitioner to receive the discharge order. Such
\ntype of action cannot be approved by an individual authority being a
\nLabour Court. Therefore, legislation has given wide power being an
\nindependent authority to consider all the aspects of discharge order
\npassed by the employer and find out whether order of discharge is
\nsuffered from victimization and unfair labour practice or not. The
\nLabour Court has power under Section 11-A, if Labour Court is
\nsatisfied that order of punishment is unjustified or harsh then
\nLabour Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders at thinks fit by
\nhim and in exercising the power, Labour Court can set aside the
\ndischarge order and grant full relief to the workmen when Labour
\nCourt has satisfied that discharge order is nothing but an ulterior
\nmotive of the employer has been materialised by passing discharge
\norder. If inquiry has been held to be legal or either not challenged
\nby the workmen and finding recorded by the inquiry officer is legal
\nand valid, even though, Labour Court has power to pass appropriate
\norder while exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947. That view has been taken by the Apex Court in
\ncase of  Scooter India Limited Vs. Labour Court, Lakhnaw,
\nreported in  AIR 1989 SC 149.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nview of this, I have considered the reasoning given by the Labour
\nCourt. The Labour Court has given cogent reason in support of each
\nissue framed by him and passed an order of granting reinstatement
\nwith continuity of service with full back wages of interim period.
\nAccordingly to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly exercised the
\npower under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For
\nthat, Labour Court having the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders
\nwhen looking to gravity of misconduct, past record, if discharge
\norder is unjustified then it is a duty of the Labour Court to grant
\nproper relief to the workmen which according to my opinion, proper
\nrelief rightly has been granted by the Labour Court. The submission
\nof learned advocate Mr. Japee that not to obey the order of superior
\nofficer, it gives wrong signals to other workmen, but, if employer on
\nsuch allegations wherein only demand of legal right raised by the
\nworkmen before the employer and if employer passed such order to
\nmaterialise his ulterior motive in this fashion then according to my
\nopinion, it also gives a wrong signals to the society. Therefore,
\nconsidering this aspect, Labour Court has not committed any error
\nincluding jurisdictional error while passing such award.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThis
\nCourt having a limited power to scrutinse the award in question while
\nexercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
\nThe view express by Apex Court in case of Laxmikant Revchand
\nBhojwani and Another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh pardeshi reported
\nin (1995)6 SCC 576. The following observations are relevant
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nHigh Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to
\ncorrect all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be
\nrestricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse
\nof fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave in justice
\nwould be done unless the High Court interferes.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAfter
\nconsidering this observation of Apex Court and reasoning given by the
\nLabour Court, according to my opinion, there is no grave injustice
\nwould be done to the petitioner if this Court will not interfere
\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court has
\nperfectly justified in passing such award. There is no infirmity in
\nthe award. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority. Even, in
\ncase of two views are possible no interference called for while
\nexercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
\nThis Court cannot interfere with such award. The submissions made by
\nlearned advocate Mr. Japee cannot be accepted in light of the above
\nobservation made by this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Japee is not
\nable to point out any infirmity in the award, therefore, when there
\nis no error committed by the Labour Court while passing such award,
\nis not required any interference by this Court while exercising the
\npower under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no
\nsubstance in both the petitions and therefore, both the petitions are
\ndisposed of.”\n<\/p>\n
From
\nthe discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit or
\nsubstance in the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the
\nappellant.  We have also carefully perused the orders dated 20.6.2006
\npassed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications
\nNo.10265 and 10266 of 2006.  We do not find any infirmity or
\nillegality in the same and we find ourselves in complete agreement
\nwith the same.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIn
\nsupport of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has
\nplaced reliance on the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
1.
\nUsha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v.Management of M\/s Usha Breco Lrd. and
\nAnr. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 994<\/p>\n
2.
\nU.B. Gadhe & Ors. etc.etc.  v. G.M. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt.
\nLtd. AIR 2008 SC 99<\/p>\n
3.
\n J K Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr. AIR 2007 SC (supp) 637
\n(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
4.
\nM\/s. L & T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar AIR 2007 SC (supp) 1752<\/p>\n
5.
\nM\/s.Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of UP and Ors. AIR 2009
\nSC (Supp) 1<\/p>\n
6.
\n U P State Brassware Corpn Ltd. & Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey AIR<\/a>
\n2006 SCC 586<\/p>\n
We
\nare  in agreement with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the
\naforesaid decisions. According to us, none of the above decisions is
\napplicable to the case on hand because the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case on hand are quite different and peculiar from the above
\ncases.  The Labour Court had dealt with each issue at length and
\nfound that the charges levelled against the workmen were not proved
\nand it was a case of clear victimization of the respondents and
\nmalafide and arbitrary exercise of powers by the appellant
\nmanagement.  In our view, on the first ground of malafide exercise of
\npower, the Labour Court had allowed the References and it was rightly
\nupheld by the learned Single Judge.  Looking to the overall facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the present Letters Patent Appeals being
\nmeritless, deserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tFor
\nthe aforesaid reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals No.877 of 2006
\nand 878 of 2006 are devoid of any merit and are accordingly
\ndismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[V
\n M SAHAI, J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[G
\nB  SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
msp<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/877\/2006 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 877 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10265 of 2006 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 878 of […]<\/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-206922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - 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\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T12:39:41+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T12:39:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2903,\"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\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T12:39:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 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":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - 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\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T12:39:41+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T12:39:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011"},"wordCount":2903,"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\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011","name":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T12:39:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surmount-vs-minakshiben-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surmount vs Minakshiben on 29 August, 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\/206922","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=206922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}