{"id":207154,"date":"2008-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-26T16:26:33","modified_gmt":"2018-02-26T10:56:33","slug":"j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nMCA\/1693\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1693 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7139 of 2005\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nJ\nS SAIYED - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nB\nK MEHTA - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nPH PATHAK for Applicant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n===================================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/06\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner has preferred this petition for initiation of action under<br \/>\nthe Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that the award passed by the<br \/>\nLabour Court is not complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr.Pathak for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the award<br \/>\npassed by the Labour Court was carried before this Court in Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No.7139 of 2005 and this Court  has confirmed the<br \/>\naward and has not interfered with the award passed by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt and therefore it is contended by Mr.Pathak for the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the award has merged with the judgment of this Court, and<br \/>\ntherefore it is a question of  disobedience   to the order passed by<br \/>\nthis Court and this Court, therefore, may initiate  action under the<br \/>\nContempt of Courts Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tUpon<br \/>\nthe query of the Court about the Division Bench decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1061961\/\">K.D. Solanki<br \/>\n v.   N.M.Patel,<\/a><br \/>\n2002(2) G.L.H. 754, where one of us (Justice Jayant Patel) was<br \/>\na party, Mr.Pathak submitted that  he is aware  about the decision,<br \/>\nbut he is not aware about the citation. However, he insisted that in<br \/>\nview of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case<br \/>\nof  <a href=\"\/doc\/1011440\/\">Bipinchandra P.Singwala<br \/>\nv.  Navin Flourine Industries,<\/a><br \/>\n1981 GLR 1070,  a   different view is required to be taken or<br \/>\nin any case, the matter may be referred to a larger Bench for<br \/>\nreconsideration of the issue.  He also submitted that the<br \/>\ndistinguishing  fact in the present case is that the award is passed<br \/>\nagainst the Governmental authority which is supposed to act as an<br \/>\nideal employer and to comply with the award in its true spirit and<br \/>\nhaving not done the same, this Court may initiate action for contempt<br \/>\nby exercising  the discretion.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nrights of the petitioner have been crystallized  as per the award of<br \/>\nthe Labour Court and it is true that this Court in a petition under<br \/>\nArticle 227  of the Constitution did not interfere with the award.<br \/>\nBut merely because the petition is rejected would not be sufficient<br \/>\nground to conclude  that it is the order of this Court which is<br \/>\ndefied  and not that of the Labour Court.  It is true that  the<br \/>\nprinciples of doctrine of merger may apply, but perusal of the order<br \/>\nof this Court in the writ petition shows  that this Court has not<br \/>\ngiven any direction to the authority to comply with the award and<br \/>\ntherefore, the rights as they were pursuant to the award did exist<br \/>\neven after the order  passed by this Court.  In substance and in<br \/>\nreality, the present petition is for compliance to the award passed<br \/>\nby the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above referred decision of this Court in the case of K.D.Solanki<br \/>\n(supra), all contentions which are sought to be canvassed in the<br \/>\npresent petition by Mr.Pathak are considered. It was, inter alia<br \/>\nobserved at para 12  as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?STherefore,<br \/>\nthe powers to  punish  for  the  contempt  are      conferred  upon<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  by  the  Constitution.     Therefore, the Contempt<br \/>\nAct is to be read and interpreted      accordingly.  On true<br \/>\nconstruction of Section 10  of  the      Contempt  Act it transpires<br \/>\nthat by using the language in      section that &#8216;every High Court<br \/>\nshall  have  and  exercise      the  same  jurisdiction&#8217;  is  meant<br \/>\nby the legislature to      make a declaration of power of the High<br \/>\nCourt, which  is,   even  otherwise,  conferred  by  the Constitution<br \/>\nand the words &#8216;shall exercise the same jurisdiction&#8217; can  not  be<br \/>\n read  so  as  to give a mandate by the legislature to the   High<br \/>\nCourt to exercise the jurisdiction  in  all  cases&#8217;.  At  this<br \/>\nstage,  it  would be worthwhile to refer to the      decision of the<br \/>\nApex Court in the matter  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/378445\/\">Baradakanta Mishra  vs. Mr.Justice<br \/>\nGatikrushna Misra, CJ of Orissa H.C.<\/a> reported in AIR 1974  SC  2255<br \/>\nwherein  the  Apex  Court      speaking through P.N.Bhagwati,J(As His<br \/>\nLordship then was)  observed that &#8220;No one has a statutory or<br \/>\ncommon law right to  say  that  he is entitled as a matter of course<br \/>\nto an   order for committal  because  the  alleged  contemner  is<br \/>\n guilty of  contempt.    All that he can do is to move the  court and<br \/>\ndraw its attention to the contempt  alleged  to   have been committed<br \/>\nand it will then be for the court, if it  so  thinks  fit,  to  take<br \/>\naction  to vindicate its      authority and commit the alleged<br \/>\ncontemner for  contempt. It  is  for  the  court  in the exercise of<br \/>\ndiscretion to decide whether  or  not  to initiate a proceeding for<br \/>\n   contempt &#8230;.   There is no right in any one to compel the court<br \/>\nto initiate a proceeding for contempt even where  a  prima facie case<br \/>\n appears to have been made out.  The same   position obtains even<br \/>\nafter a proceeding for contempt is      initiated  by  the  court  on<br \/>\na motion made to it for the      purpose.&#8221; The Apex Court<br \/>\nfurther observed that &#8221; if right      is created to the  party<br \/>\nwho  moves  or  draws  the  the      attention  of  the court, the<br \/>\ncourt itself decides not to   initiate  the  proceedings  for<br \/>\ncontempt or refuse  to initiate  the proceedings for contempt, there<br \/>\nis no right      conferred even to such a party  for  preferring<br \/>\nappeal&#8221;.      Therefore, it can not be said at all that it is<br \/>\nmandatory  for  the  High  Court  to  exercise  powers  to  initiate<br \/>\n    proceedings under the Contempt Act, but once the contempt   or<br \/>\nbreach of the order of the court subordinate to it  is      brought<br \/>\nto the notice by moving appropriate application, it is for the High<br \/>\nCourt to exercise  its  discretion  to decide  whether  or not to<br \/>\ninitiate the proceedings for      contempt.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nsubmission of Mr.Soni  that  it is mandatory for the High Court to<br \/>\nexercise the powers of  contempt  is absolutely without substance and<br \/>\ndeserves to  be rejected on the face of it.??\n<\/p>\n<p>Further,<br \/>\nafter considering the various decisions  of the Apex Court and having<br \/>\ntaken into consideration the various provisions of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, it was, inter alia, concluded in para 15 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?SIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid conclusion also, it  has   got  to be concluded<br \/>\nthat as per the inbuilt mechanism of  the Act after the award having<br \/>\nbeen passed by the  Labour   Court or the Industrial Tribunal, the<br \/>\nAct provides :\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tThe<br \/>\n executing  machinery for the purpose      of its enforceability as<br \/>\nper section 29 read  of  section      34  of  the Act for conviction<br \/>\nand by imposing penalty as      provided under section 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe execution of the award by  a special mode   is   provided by independent   proceedings  as contemplated under section 33C of  the  Act. The  said executing  machinery or the executing power of the Labour Court includes the power for recovering money by issuing certificates  and  such amount has to be recovered as per      Land Revenue Code.??\n<\/p>\n<p>It was also observed at para 25 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S25.\tIn<br \/>\n view  of  the  above  it  is clear that under I.D.Act itself there<br \/>\nis inbuilt  mechanism  provided  for  the purpose of enforcement and<br \/>\nexecution of awards passed  by the Labour Courts and the Industrial<br \/>\nTribunals and the award  passed  by the Labour Court is more or less<br \/>\nat par  with  the  decrees  of  the  Civil  Court  but  the  only<br \/>\ndistinction is that the monetary benefits of the award or  the<br \/>\nsettlement is only to be recovered under Land Revenue  Code whereas<br \/>\nin the decree of Civil Court the other modes      are also<br \/>\npermissible.    Further, noncompliance of award      would invite<br \/>\ncriminal prosecution.    However,  providing for  the  recovery<br \/>\nunder the Land Revenue Code is made a  vigorous mode of recovery and<br \/>\ntherefore it is clear  that      in  the  Act  itself  sufficient and<br \/>\nenough measures have      been provided for execution of award.\n<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\npara 27 and 28 it was concluded as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S27.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, it is clear that   the power of the<br \/>\nContempt Act should not be considered as   that of executing court<br \/>\nnor the court should normally not  exercise the power when the party<br \/>\nto the award or  decree      has   alternative   remedy   also   for<br \/>\nthe  purpose  of implementing or executing the decree or  award. It<br \/>\nis  clarified  that  we  do  not  hold  that such measures of<br \/>\nproviding alternative remedy for execution of  the  award      or<br \/>\ndecree  operates as bar for exercising powers of this  court under<br \/>\nthe Contempt Act.  However, at the same time,  when the Act itself in<br \/>\nthe present case I.D.Act provides      sufficient  and  effective<br \/>\nmeasures for execution of the award, normally this court relegate the<br \/>\n party  concerned who are petitioners in the present case to resort<br \/>\nto such      remedies  provided  under  the Act for implementation<br \/>\nand      execution of the award.  In view of above circumstances<br \/>\nas mentioned and narrated in case of Bipinchandra (supra)      and<br \/>\nShankarpuri(supra) can not be said to be in existence   as on today<br \/>\ncoupled with the fact that the  law  is  laid  down  subsequently  by<br \/>\nthe Apex Court in case of State of      Maharashtra (supra) and in<br \/>\ncase of R.N.Dey (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>28.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view  of  the  matter,  we  are  not      inclined  to<br \/>\ninitiate  proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as sought to<br \/>\nbe canvassed by  the  petitioners and the petitioners may approach<br \/>\nappropriate authority or      the  Labour  Court\/Industrial  Tribunal<br \/>\nfor execution and  implementation of awards.??\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\nthe decision  upon which  reliance is placed by learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner in  the case of Bipinchandra P.Singwala (supra) is<br \/>\nconsidered.   Therefore, considering the above referred decision of<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.D.Solanki (supra),<br \/>\nwe are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of this Court which is binding to this Court.<br \/>\nFurther in any case, the aforesaid decision  in the case of<br \/>\nBinpinchandra P.Singwala (supra) was considered  and therefore it is<br \/>\nnot a case where disagreement deserves to be recorded for   referring<br \/>\nthe matter to the Larger Bench.  In any case, the decision of a<br \/>\ncoordinate Bench of this Court  which is a recent decision is binding<br \/>\nto this Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt<br \/>\nis not a matter where there is no remedy available to the petitioner<br \/>\nfor implementation or enforcement of the award of the Labour Court.<br \/>\nWhen there is an inbuilt mechanism provided under the Act for<br \/>\nenforcement of the award passed by the Labour Court, we are not<br \/>\ninclined to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act at<br \/>\nthis stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, the petition is not entertained at this stage and<br \/>\nis disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Jayant<br \/>\nPatel, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi,  J.)<\/p>\n<p>(vjn)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print MCA\/1693\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1693 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7139 of 2005 ===================================================== J S SAIYED &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus B [&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-207154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1791,\"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\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\",\"name\":\"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 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":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008"},"wordCount":1791,"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\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008","name":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T10:56:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-vs-unknown-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J vs Unknown on 17 June, 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\/207154","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=207154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}