{"id":210730,"date":"2009-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-01T00:37:48","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T19:07:48","slug":"cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/157620\/2009\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1576 of 2009\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCEMA\nELECTRIC LIGHTING PRODUCTS INDIA PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nG\nE EMPLOYEES UNION &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nAVANTI K PATEL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nMR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNANAVATI ASSOCIATES for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/03\/2009 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nPetitioner has challenged orders dated 5th February, 2009<br \/>\nand 17th February, 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,<br \/>\nNadiad. By order dated 5th February, 2009, the learned<br \/>\nTribunal has, by way of ad interim order, directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to maintain status quo as regards the proceedings<br \/>\nof departmental inquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tEarlier,<br \/>\non 20th February, 2009, considering the impugned orders<br \/>\ndated 5th February, 2009 and 17th February,<br \/>\n2009 and the submissions of the petitioner, this Court had issued<br \/>\nnotice which was made returnable on 25th February, 2009.<br \/>\nThe notice was issued keeping in mind mainly three aspects viz. (a)<br \/>\nby the said impugned ad interim orders the learned Tribunal had<br \/>\nstayed the process of departmental inquiry, which is normally not<br \/>\ndone, (b) and that therefore, though the orders brought under<br \/>\nchallenge which were ad interim orders, against which this Court<br \/>\nwould normally not interfere at interlocutory stage, this Court<br \/>\nconsidered it appropriate to issue notice; and (c) that the learned<br \/>\nTribunal in order dated 17th February, 2009 observed that<br \/>\nthe hearing was concluded and order was to be passed and in the<br \/>\nmeantime Court has required the company to maintain status quo i.e.<br \/>\nto not to proceed in the inquiry and thereby continued the exparte<br \/>\nstay against inquiry. Thus, while issuing notice on 20th<br \/>\nFebruary, 2009, the Court hoped and expected that at least by<br \/>\nreturnable date the Tribunal would pass appropriate order.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tHowever,<br \/>\nuntil returnable date the Tribunal did not pass any order and the<br \/>\nstay against the inquiry continued to operate. On 25th<br \/>\nFebruary, 2009, i.e. returnable date Mr. Clerk entered appearance on<br \/>\nbehalf of respondents and placed on record an affidavit-in-reply for<br \/>\nopposing the petition. It was submitted on behalf of respondents that<br \/>\nthe arguments of contesting parties have been heard and the order is<br \/>\nabout to be passed. Thus, instead of issuing any direction to the<br \/>\nTribunal and fixing some outer time limit for passing appropriate<br \/>\norder, as strenuously urged by petitioner company by any interim<br \/>\norder at that stage, order dated 25th February, 2009 was<br \/>\npassed and the hearing of this petition was adjourned to 4th<br \/>\nMarch, 2009 with the hope that the Tribunal will have sufficient time<br \/>\nto pass appropriate orders, and by that time order, as may be<br \/>\nconsidered appropriate by the Tribunal, will be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nthe said order dated 25th February, 2009, this Court<br \/>\nexpressly observed that  The order impugned in the petition is<br \/>\nonly an interlocutory order, passed at an ad-interim stage. Normally<br \/>\nthis Court would not entertain at interim stage against an<br \/>\ninterlocutory order. However, since usually the proceedings of the<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiries are not supposed to be stayed until a strong<br \/>\ncase for want of jurisdiction or malafide is made out, this Court<br \/>\nissued notice on 20.02.2009 making it returnable today.<br \/>\nIn the said order this Court also observed that  If by<br \/>\nthat time, the order is not passed then, after considering the status<br \/>\nof the matter and further developments, appropriate order may be<br \/>\npassed on 4th March, 2009. Yadi may be served to the<br \/>\nlearned Tribunal. So as to enable the parties to know the status of<br \/>\nthe order, it will be open to the parties to produce a copy of this<br \/>\norder before the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tOn<br \/>\n4th March, 2009, this Court was informed that the learned<br \/>\nTribunal had, for certain compelling  reasons, proceeded on leave and<br \/>\ntherefore the order was not passed. Hence, the proceedings of this<br \/>\npetition was adjourned to 13th March, 2009 so as to enable<br \/>\nthe Tribunal to complete and pronounce the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOn<br \/>\n13th March, 2009, this Court was informed that the<br \/>\nTribunal had resumed the duties but due to unavailability of the<br \/>\nstenographer, the order could not be completed though the dictation<br \/>\nof the order had commenced.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tHence,<br \/>\nthe proceedings were adjourned to 17th March, 2009 and<br \/>\nthen to today. Until today the Tribunal has not completed\/passed the<br \/>\norder and today the Court is informed that the Tribunal has again<br \/>\nproceeded on leave due to certain compelling personal reasons (on<br \/>\naccount of which the Tribunal had proceed on leave on earlier<br \/>\noccasion) and it is not clear or certain as to whether the order will<br \/>\nbe completed and passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthis way almost one month has passed since the matter was heard by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal and the order was reserved. This petition is also<br \/>\npending before this Court since 20th February, 2009 and<br \/>\ndespite the adjournments as aforesaid, so as to enable the Tribunal<br \/>\nto complete and pass the order, it appears that the learned Tribunal<br \/>\nhas not been able to complete the order. In this view of the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, on<br \/>\neach adjournment, has earnestly requested this Court to pass<br \/>\nappropriate orders in the petition in light of the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case while contending that the proceedings of<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry ought not be stayed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tToday<br \/>\nthis Court has heard Mr. KM Patel, learned senior counsel with Mr. AK<br \/>\nPatel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. AK Clerk, learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the respondents. Mr. Patel has made elaborate<br \/>\nsubmissions regarding the charges levelled against the workmen, the<br \/>\naction of the workmen due to which, as per the petitioner&#8217;s case, the<br \/>\ncharge-sheets had to be issued and inquiry proceedings had to be<br \/>\ncommenced. He has also made submission with regard to the settlement<br \/>\nand the risk involved in the event the workers abstain from work<br \/>\nsince the concerned department is a  continuous process department<br \/>\nand the consequences of the workmen not reporting for work. Mr. Patel<br \/>\nalso made submission with regard to impropriety of the order staying<br \/>\nthe departmental inquiry. He relied upon judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex Court  reported in 2000(5) SCC 467, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 943,<br \/>\n1995(1) SCC 182 and the judgment of this Court reported in 1986(1)<br \/>\nGLR 406. Referring to the above decisions, Mr. Patel submitted that<br \/>\ncorrectness or justifiability of the charges cannot be gone into at<br \/>\nthis stage by the Court, more particularly, until the proceedings of<br \/>\nthe departmental inquiry are not concluded and that is the subject<br \/>\nwithin the scope of departmental inquiry and that the Court should<br \/>\nnot interfere at interlocutory stage of departmental inquiry. He<br \/>\nsubmitted that the matter regarding the misconduct is to be<br \/>\ninvestigated during the inquiry and the learned Tribunal could not<br \/>\nhave and ought not have undertaken the said exercise at this stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tPer<br \/>\ncontra Mr. Clerk submitted that in present petition, ad-interim order<br \/>\nhas been challenged and the Court would not entertain a petition at<br \/>\nany interlocutory stage against an ad-interim order and\/or will not<br \/>\ninterfere with an ad-interim order at this stage. He also submitted<br \/>\nthat the action of the concerned workmen would not amount to<br \/>\nmisconduct and in fact the action of initiating the departmental<br \/>\ninquiry and suspending as many as 50 workmen is wholly unreasonable<br \/>\nand unwarranted. He submitted that even otherwise the day on which<br \/>\nthe concerned workmen allegedly did not remain present was a public<br \/>\nholiday being &#8216;Makarsankranti&#8217; and that there was change in practise<br \/>\nand the concerned workmen were not expressly called to attend the<br \/>\nduties  on the day which was a &#8216;paid holiday&#8217;. He also submitted that<br \/>\nthis is not a case where the Tribunal is unnecessarily or<br \/>\nunreasonably avoiding to pass order\/award and in fact the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas not avoided to pass the order.  He also submitted that the<br \/>\nlearned Tribunal has actually started dictating the order, however,<br \/>\ndue to certain reasons beyond control, the Tribunal could not<br \/>\ncomplete the order and that therefore, this Court may not, at this<br \/>\nstage, entertain the petition and instead permit the Tribunal some<br \/>\nmore time to complete and pronounce the order. Mr. Clerk also<br \/>\nsubmitted that actually it is the workmen who are suffering due to<br \/>\nthe order of suspension, as their wages have been affected  inasmuch<br \/>\nas suspended workmen are being paid only subsistence allowances.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe submissions of contesting parties, what emerges is the short fact<br \/>\nthat about 50 workmen have been chargesheeted in connection with<br \/>\ncertain acts which the employer considers as misconduct and in<br \/>\nrespect of which intends to proceed against the workmen by way of<br \/>\ndepartmental proceedings. As a step towards that direction, the<br \/>\ncompany has issued charge-sheet dated 20.01.2009 to about 50 workmen,<br \/>\nwhereas said workmen have been placed under suspension since<br \/>\n15.01.2009. Thus, since 15.01.2009 the workmen are under suspension<br \/>\nand in view of the order passed by the Tribunal, the proceedings of<br \/>\nthe departmental inquiry are stayed and the workmen continue under<br \/>\nsuspension.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the order staying the proceedings of departmental inquiry is<br \/>\nconcerned, it is settled position that normally the Court would not<br \/>\ninterfere in the proceedings of departmental inquiry and would not<br \/>\nstay such proceedings unless inherent lack of jurisdiction in<br \/>\ninitiating the departmental inquiry or such compelling circumstances<br \/>\nor on such other compelling grounds the initiation or continuation of<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry is shown to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tWhile<br \/>\npassing the order dated 05.02.2009, the learned Tribunal has not<br \/>\nrecorded any reason as to why the learned Tribunal was pleased to<br \/>\nstay by exparte order, the departmental inquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tEven<br \/>\nin the order dated 17.02.2009, no reason is disclosed as to why the<br \/>\nproceedings of the departmental inquiry have been stayed by the<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tFor<br \/>\nthis Court, it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to enter into<br \/>\nthe merits of the charge-sheet and examine as to whether there is<br \/>\njustification in the action initiated by the petitioner company or<br \/>\nnot. The said issue is under consideration before the learned<br \/>\nTribunal and any observation at this stage would influence the<br \/>\nproceedings and\/or the order that may be passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tSuffice<br \/>\nit to say, at this stage, that, prima facie, there does not appear to<br \/>\nbe any compelling reason, such as want of authority in the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority or any other legal impediment in conducting<br \/>\nthe departmental inquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe rival submissions, the petition is required to be admitted.<br \/>\nHence, Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as ad interim relief is concerned, in light of the aforesaid<br \/>\ndiscussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nwith regard to stay against the departmental inquiry, this Court is<br \/>\nof the view that, at this stage, it does not appear appropriate or<br \/>\nnecessary to stay the proceedings of departmental inquiry and it<br \/>\nwould be appropriate to permit the petitioner company to proceed<br \/>\nfurther with the departmental inquiry in accordance with law and<br \/>\napplicable standing orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tHowever,<br \/>\nsince the initiation and conduct of the departmental inquiry itself<br \/>\nis under challenge before the learned Tribunal and the said aspects<br \/>\nare yet under consideration and are yet to be examined by the learned<br \/>\nTribunal, it would be in fitness of things that until the learned<br \/>\nTribunal examines the matter and passes the order, the conclusion of<br \/>\nthe departmental inquiry may be made subject to the orders that may<br \/>\nbe passed by the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, though the petitioner company may proceed further<br \/>\nin the departmental inquiry, it may not pass final orders on the<br \/>\nbasis of the departmental proceedings until the learned Tribunal<br \/>\npasses order on application Ex.19. This  arrangement is made only<br \/>\nbecause the learned Tribunal has not been able to complete and pass<br \/>\nthe order. The arrangement will be subject to the order that may be<br \/>\npassed by the learned Tribunal. If the departmental inquiry<br \/>\nproceeding gets concluded before the Tribunal completes and<br \/>\npronounces the order, then the petitioner may make appropriate<br \/>\napplication for necessary orders, at that stage. It will be open to<br \/>\nthe respondent Union also to make any appropriate application at that<br \/>\nstage, for necessary directions. It is hoped that the Tribunal would<br \/>\npass appropriate order as it thinks fit in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case on Ex.19 as early as possible. The Tribunal<br \/>\nshall pass the order in accordance with law and without being<br \/>\ninfluenced by this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.M.THAKER,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>jani<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/157620\/2009 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1576 of 2009 ========================================================= CEMA ELECTRIC LIGHTING PRODUCTS INDIA PVT LTD &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus G E EMPLOYEES UNION &amp; 1 [&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-210730","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - 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\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-31T19:07:48+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T19:07:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1983,\"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\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T19:07:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - 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\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-31T19:07:48+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T19:07:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009"},"wordCount":1983,"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\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009","name":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T19:07:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cema-vs-g-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cema vs G on 18 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/210730","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=210730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210730\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}