{"id":209305,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-07T13:46:23","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T08:16:23","slug":"vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\nSCR.A\/464\/2010\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 464 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\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\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nVAISHALI\nDINESHBHAI TRIVEDI - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMANAGER\n(H.D.F.C) & 6 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASIT M MEHTA for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR SANJAY A MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. \nMR SHIRISH R PATEL for\nRespondent(s) : 5, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 6, \nMS KRINA KALLA,\nAPP for Respondent(s) :\n7, \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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:   \/  \/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
Petitioner
\n\tclaims to be tenant of a residential property situated at plot no.
\n\t53\/P in revenue survey no. 56\/1 paikee of Sarvodaynagar, Behind
\n\tAyurvedic Pharmacy, Joshipura, Junagadh(here-in-after referred to as
\n\t the said property ).\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto her, she was given the said property on rent about three years
\n\tago by respondent no.5 on a monthly rent of Rs.1150\/-.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThough
\n\tthe petitioner contends that she was previously not aware about any
\n\tloan transaction,  it is an undisputed position that respondent no.5
\n\thad borrowed the sum of Rs. 1,40,000\/- from HDFC bank ( the bank
\n\tfor short) on or around 29.10.2003 by mortgaging said property in
\n\tfavour of bank.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tSince
\n\trespondent no.5 borrower did not repay the loan with interest at
\n\tagreed rate, bank issued notice dated 15.1.2009  under Section 13(2)
\n\tof the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
\n\tEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (here-in-after referred
\n\tto as  the Act ) calling upon him to repay entire outstanding
\n\twithin 60 days failing which the bank would take recourse to one or
\n\tmore measures envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the
\n\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tSince
\n\tthe borrower did not repay the outstanding dues bank proceeded
\n\tfurther by making application under Section 14 of the Act dated
\n\t4.8.2009 seeking police assistance for taking possession of the
\n\tproperty in question. Bank obtained  order from the Magistrate and
\n\tas per the say of the bank with police assistance took actual vacant
\n\tpossession of the property in question in January 2010.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tIt
\n\tis however the case of the petitioner that on 20.12010, respondents
\n\tentered the property forcibly and physically threw out the
\n\tpetitioner and her family members. They were humiliated and
\n\tinsulted. Their belongings were thrown out.  She was thus illegally
\n\tdispossessed of the property of which she was entitled to retain
\n\tpossession.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tIt
\n\tis the  case of the petitioner that though she complained to the
\n\tpolice authorities about such illegal action, no steps are being
\n\ttaken.\n<\/p>\n
2.6\tIn
\n\tthis background, the petitioner has come to this Court making
\n\tfollowing  prayers :\n<\/p>\n
 (a)
\n\tYour Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition and
\n\tissue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and
\n\tthe quash the illegal proceedings of the H.D.F.C. Authority as on
\n\t20-1-2010, and direct the respondents to give the peaceful
\n\tpossession of  the alleged property which is forcefully and illegal
\n\tdisposed by H.D.F.C. and cost Rs. 3,00,000\/- on respondents<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\tYour Lordships may kindly give interim relief by directing the
\n\trespondents that not to stop remove the immovable property of the
\n\tpetitioner from the house and give re-possession to the petitioner
\n\tduring the pendency of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
ALTERNATIVELY<\/p>\n
Your
\n\tLordships may kindly be pleased to order the respondent authorities
\n\tto make the alternative arrangement of house for the petitioner
\n\tduring the pendency of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\t Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass the necessary order
\n\tand direction to the respondent authorities, those are not ready
\n\tto take the Criminal Complaint of the present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n\tYour Lordship may kindly be pleased to grant such other and further
\n\trelief  as the nature and circumstances of the present petition in
\n\tthe interest of justice;\n<\/p>\n
Counsel
\n\tfor the petitioner submitted that petitioner was a lawful tenant of
\n\tthe property in question. Such tenancy could not have been
\n\tterminated by the respondents by unilateral action. She was entitled
\n\tto retain possession of the property till her tenancy was lawfully
\n\tterminated. He further submitted that respondents acted highhandedly
\n\tand illegally by physically throwing out the petitioner and her
\n\tfamily members. Petitioner’s criminal complaint is not being
\n\tregistered by the police. No investigation has been undertaken. In
\n\tsupport of the contention he relied on the decision of Learned
\n\tSingle Judge of this  court in case of Dena Bank v. Shri Sihor
\n\tNagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd  &<\/a> ors reported in AIR 2008
\n\tGujarat 110.  He also relied on the decision of the Apex court in
\n\tcase of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & ors.<\/a>
\n\treported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1349. He therefore, contended
\n\tthat action should be initiated against respondents and petitioner
\n\tshould be restored her possession of the property.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, counsel for the bank opposed the petition contending
\n\tthat respondent no.5 owner of the property had taken loan from the
\n\tbank by creating security interest in the property. After following
\n\tnecessary steps envisaged under the Act, possession of the property
\n\twas legally taken over. He pointed out that notice under Section
\n\t13(2) of the Act was served on the borrower. Such notice was neither
\n\treplied to, nor objections raised. Outstanding dues were not paid.
\n\tBank therefore, proceeded further in terms of sub-section(4) of
\n\tSection 13 of the Act for which purpose it required police
\n\tassistance. No illegality was thus committed. In particular, he
\n\tcontended that even going by the statement of the petitioner, the
\n\ttenancy was created about three years back. The borrower had taken
\n\tloan from the bank in the year 2003. Loan agreement contained
\n\tfollowing negative covenants :\n<\/p>\n
 5.4
\n\tNegative Covenants<\/p>\n
Unless
\n\tHDFC shall otherwise agree:\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\n\tPossession : The borrower shall not let out or otherwise
\n\thowsoever part with the possession of the property or any part
\n\tthereof.\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\tAlienation : The borrower shall not sell, mortgage, lease,
\n\tsurrender or otherwise howsoever alienate the property or any part
\n\tthereof.\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\tAgreements and Arrangements : The borrower shall not enter into any
\n\tAgreement or Arrangement with any person, institution or local or
\n\tGovernment body for the use,occupation or disposal of
\n\tthe said property or any part thereof during the
\n\tpendency of the loan.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tCounsel
\n\tfor the bank relied on the affidavit filed by the bank and contended
\n\tthat bank does not admit any lawful tenancy over the property in
\n\tquestion. In fact tenancy was only an eyewash to defeat the claim of
\n\tthe bank.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tHe
\n\tcontended that even as per the petitioner, tenancy was created long
\n\tafter the owner mortgaged the property with the bank, despite
\n\tabove-noted negative covenants. The bank was therefore, within its
\n\trights to take over the possession of the property, even evicting
\n\tthe tenant if need be. He relied on the decision of Business
\n\tIndia Builders & Developers Ltd. v. Union Bank of India &
\n\tors. reported in AIR 2007 Kerala 114.\n<\/p>\n
Having
\n\tthus heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
\n\tdocuments and pleadings on record, it clearly emerges that even as
\n\tper the petitioner, she was put in possession of the property in
\n\tquestion as tenant by respondent no.5 about three years back.
\n\tDocuments on record clearly suggest that respondent no.5 owner of
\n\tthe property had taken loan from the bank in the year 2003. Property
\n\twas mortgaged. Security interest was thus created in favour of the
\n\tbank. Negative covenants as already noticed precluded owner from
\n\tcreating any tenancy, despite which, even accepting the version of
\n\tthe petitioner, borrower rented out the property which legally could
\n\tnot have been done. Under the circumstances, we are  of the view
\n\tthat it was well within the powers of the bank to take over the
\n\tpossession of the property and even evict the tenant if any found.
\n\tIn the present case bank after issuing notice under section 13(2) of
\n\tthe Act to the borrower and waiting  for his objection or repayment
\n\tof outstanding dues during statutory period, proceeded further to
\n\ttake possession with assistance of the police as provided by the
\n\tMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcase of Dena Bank (supra),
\n\tpart of the property was in possession of the tenants even before
\n\tthe property was mortgaged to the bank and this fact was disclosed
\n\tto the bank before obtaining loan and mortgaging the property in
\n\tfavour of the bank. It was in background of this pre-existing
\n\tadmitted tenancy that it was held that such tenant cannot be evicted
\n\tby the bank under the Act. Decision of Kerala High Court in case of
\n\tBusiness India Builders & Developers Ltd
\n\t(supra) was noticed but
\n\tdistinguished on fact.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand in case of Business India Builders &
\n\tDevelopers Ltd.(supra),
\n\tDivision Bench interpreting  the words free from encumbrances
\n\tappearing in Rule 9(9) of Security Interest (Enforcements) Rules
\n\t2002 held that even tenants can be evicted by the authorised officer
\n\twhile delivering property tot he purchaser. It was held that even
\n\tthe bank can take physical possession of the property by following
\n\tprocedure laid down under Section 14 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe present case, we are clearly of the opinion that bank committed
\n\tno illegality  to the extent it tried to take actual vacant
\n\tpossession of the property in question since we find that tenancy
\n\twas admittedly created when the property was mortgaged to the bank
\n\tagainst negative covenants contained in the loan agreement.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tshould however not be understood to have authorised any police
\n\taccess or unnecessary or impermissible use of force for securing
\n\tsuch vacant possession. If therefore the case of the petitioner is
\n\tthat excessive force was used or that either the bank
\n\tofficers\/employees or the police caused any violence, it is always
\n\topen for the petitioner to seek redress in accordance with law. This
\n\thowever, would not entitle the petitioner to seek repossession of
\n\tthe property. If the police is not recording the complaint of the
\n\tpetitioner and undertaking investigation, as per the settled law, it
\n\tis always open for the petitioner to approach competent Magistrate
\n\tby filing complaint in writing.\n<\/p>\n
\tSubject
\n\tto above observations, the petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.Mujkhopadhaya,C.J.)<\/p>\n
(Akil
\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n
(raghu)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/464\/2010 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 464 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI […]<\/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-209305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T08:16:23+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\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T08:16:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1589,\"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\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T08:16:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T08:16:23+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\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T08:16:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":1589,"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\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010","name":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T08:16:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-manager-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaishali vs Manager on 27 September, 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:\/\/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\/209305","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=209305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}