{"id":21850,"date":"2011-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-02-16T05:57:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-16T00:27:44","slug":"baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice B.M.Trivedi,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3031\/2011\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\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3031 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\nBABOO\nRAM HARICHAND THROUGH PARTNER RAJESH SUBHASHCHANDRA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n==========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR AMAR D MITHANI\nfor Petitioner \nMR PS\nCHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR RJ OZA for Respondent(s) : 2\n- 5. \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\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\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\tMS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tR. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel tendered copies of
\n\tvarious communications as well as copy of an order of final
\n\tassessment of one of the Bills of Entry filed by the petitioner in
\n\tcompliance with the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by this Court. The
\n\tsame are taken on record.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amar Mithani,
\n\tlearned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Oza, learned
\n\tSenior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2
\n\tto 5.\n<\/p>\n
Assailing
\n\tthe seizure made vide seizure memo and panchnama both dated
\n\t7.2.1010, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
\n\tthat the seizure is not warranted under the facts and circumstances
\n\tof the case. Referring to the provisions of section 110 of the
\n\tCustoms Act, 1962 (the Act) it was submitted that under the said
\n\tprovision the proper officer is empowered to seize any goods liable
\n\tto confiscation. Insofar as imported goods are concerned, the same
\n\tcan be confiscated if the same fall under any of the categories
\n\tenumerated under section 111 of the Act and that the present case
\n\tdoes not fall within any of the categories enumerated of thereunder.
\n\tInviting attention to the Bill of Entry for Home Consumption, at
\n\tAnnexure R-III to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
\n\trespondents No.2 and 3, it was submitted that the description and
\n\tthe value of the goods have been correctly stated by the petitioner
\n\tand that, there is no misrepresentation made in the Bill of Entry.
\n\tIt was urged that all that the petitioner has done is that it has
\n\tclaimed the benefit of exemption under the DFIA licences on the
\n\tground that Areca Nut which are the goods imported by the
\n\tpetitioner, are covered by item No.12 (c) (i) of G-7 of the Standard
\n\tInput & Output Norms (SION) prescribed by the Director General
\n\tof Foreign Trade.  It was submitted that merely making a claim
\n\tcannot be said to be a mis-declaration so as to fall within the
\n\tambit of clause (m) of section 111 of the Act. As regards the
\n\tapplicability of clause (o) of section 111 of the Act, it was
\n\tsubmitted that the said provision would be applicable in a case
\n\twhere goods are exempted, subject to certain conditions and there is
\n\tnon-observance of any condition, whereas in the present case, so far
\n\tthe goods in question have not been exempted from duty so as to fall
\n\twithin the purview of the said clause.  According to the learned
\n\tcounsel, there is no material for the respondent No.3 to have formed
\n\ta reason to believe that the subject goods were liable to
\n\tconfiscation for the purpose of resorting to seizing the same under
\n\tthe provisions of section 110 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 5 vehemently opposed
\n\tthe petition. Inviting attention to the Bill of Entry annexed with
\n\tthe affidavit-in-reply, it was submitted that the petitioner has
\n\tclaimed the benefit of exemption under the Duty Free Import
\n\tAuthorisation (DFIA) Scheme and has, accordingly, stated in the Bill
\n\tof Entry that it is totally exempted from the liability to pay any
\n\tduty. It was submitted that the said assertion in the Bill of Entry
\n\twould amount to mis-declaration inasmuch as, the goods imported by
\n\tthe petitioner, viz., Beetle Nut\/Areca Nut, do not fall under G-7 of
\n\tSION norms. It was accordingly submitted that any material
\n\tmis-declaration on the part of the importer would render the goods
\n\tliable to confiscation and can be seized under section 110 of the
\n\tAct and that the present case would be squarely covered by clauses\n<\/p>\n
\t(m) and (o) of section 111 of the Act. It was submitted that once
\n\tthe proper officer has been satisfied
\n\tthat the conditions precedent for invoking section 110 of the Act
\n\tare satisfied, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not
\n\tinterfere with the same. Reliance
\n\twas placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State
\n\tof Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and<\/a> another,
\n\t1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) for the proposition that if prima facie
\n\tthere are grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that
\n\tthe seized goods were liable to confiscation, the courts have to
\n\taccept the officers belief whether the court of its own might or
\n\tmight not have entertain the same belief. Courts should not sit in
\n\tappeal in regard to this question.\n<\/p>\n
Inviting
\n\tattention Note: 3 below SION norms, it was submitted that
\n\tSupplementary Vegetable Tanning Agents, are allowed to be imported
\n\ton actual user condition and that the petitioner not being an actual
\n\tuser, is even otherwise not entitled to import the said goods under
\n\tthe DFIA Scheme. The learned counsel further submitted that in the
\n\tlight of the relief claimed by the petitioner, whereby the
\n\tpetitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pass assessment
\n\torders in respect of the Bills of Entry filed by it, the respondents
\n\thave finalized the assessment and have quantified the duty and as
\n\tsuch, the petitioner is now liable to pay the duty under the said
\n\torders of final assessment, and if at all the petitioner is
\n\taggrieved by the final assessments, it is open to the petitioner to
\n\tavail of statutory remedy available under the Act.  It was also
\n\tsubmitted that once the goods have been seized in exercise of powers
\n\tunder section 110 of the Act, the remedy available to the petitioner
\n\tis to make an application for provisional release of goods seized
\n\tpending adjudication to the Commissioner of Customs under section
\n\t110A of the Act. It was submitted that in the circumstances, at this
\n\tstage, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any interim
\n\trelief.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
\n\tcounsel for the respective parties on the question of grant of
\n\tinterim relief. In the present case the subject goods; viz.
\n\tconsignments of Areca nut have been seized by the respondent No.3 in
\n\texercise of powers under section 110 of the Act, as according to him
\n\tthe goods are liable to confiscation under section 111(m) and (o) of
\n\tthe Act. Section 111 of the Act lays down the categories of goods
\n\twhich are liable to confiscation.  Clause (m) thereof is attracted
\n\tif any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any
\n\tother particular with the entry made under the Act or in the case of
\n\tbaggage with the declaration made under section 77 in respect
\n\tthereof or in the case of goods under transshipment, with the
\n\tdeclaration for transshipment referred to in the proviso to
\n\tsub-section (1) of section 54.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe present case, a perusal of the Bill of Entry annexed along with
\n\tthe affidavit-in-reply indicates that the petitioner has described
\n\tthe subject goods as Beetle Nut Industrial Grade and has also
\n\tindicated the Tariff Heading under which the same are classifiable.
\n\tIn any case, it is not the case of the respondents that the value or
\n\tany other particular in relation to the goods imported by the
\n\tpetitioner do not correspond to the entry made under the Act. The
\n\tcase of the respondents is that by claiming the benefit of DFIA
\n\tlicenses in respect of Areca Nut, which according to the respondents
\n\tis not covered by the DFIA licence, the petitioner has made a
\n\tmis-declaration in the Bills of Entry submitted by it.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\taccording to the respondents the claim of the petitioner that it is
\n\tentitled to exemption from payment of customs
\n\tduty under the DFIA licence in respect of the subject goods imported
\n\tby it amounts to mis-declaration so as to fall within the ambit of
\n\tclause (m) of section 111 of the Act.  In this regard, it may be
\n\tpertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
\n\tof Northern
\n\tPlastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise,<\/a>
\n\t(1998) 6 SCC 443, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that whether
\n\tthe assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under a
\n\tparticular notification or not, was a matter of belief of the
\n\tassessee and not a matter of “any other particular” with
\n\trespect to the goods.  The Court held that while dealing with such a
\n\tclaim in respect of payment of customs duty, when a declaration is
\n\tin the nature of a claim made on the basis of the belief entertained
\n\tby the assessee it cannot be said to be a mis-declaration as
\n\tcontemplated by section 111(m) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe facts of the present case, in the opinion of the Court, prima
\n\tfacie, all that the petitioner has done is that it has made a claim
\n\tthat it is entitled to exemption of duty in respect of the goods
\n\timported by it under the DFIA Scheme on the ground that Areca Nut
\n\twould stand covered
\n\tunder item No.12 (c)(i) of the group G-7 of the Standard Inputs and
\n\tOutput Norms (SION). Insofar as other particulars are concerned,
\n\tthere does not appear to be any dispute as regards their
\n\tcorrectness. In the circumstances, prima facie, in the light of the
\n\taforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern
\n\tPlastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise,<\/a>
\n\t(supra), it appears that the provisions of clause (m) of section 111
\n\tof the Act would not be attracted in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas invocation of clause (o) of section 111 of the Act is concerned,
\n\tthe same provides that any goods exempted, subject to any condition,
\n\tfrom duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under
\n\tthe Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of
\n\twhich the condition is not observed, would be liable to
\n\tconfiscation. In the facts of the present case, according to the
\n\trespondents the subject goods are not exempt from customs duty,
\n\twhich is also borne out from the fact that the subject goods have
\n\tbeen finally assessed by levying appropriate rate of duty applicable
\n\tto such goods if they are not entitled to exemption under the DFIA
\n\tlicence. Thus, if the goods are not exempted goods, there would be
\n\tno question of the goods being subject to any condition. The said
\n\tprovision would apply in a case where the goods are exempted subject
\n\tto certain conditions and thereafter, there is non-observance of the
\n\tsaid conditions. In the facts of the present case, that not being
\n\tthe position, the said clause would not be applicable to the goods
\n\tin question.  In the circumstances, prima facie, the provisions
\n\tof section 111 of the Act would not be attracted in the facts and
\n\tcircumstances of the present case. Consequently, it cannot be said
\n\tthat there is any material on the basis of which the proper officer
\n\tcould form the requisite belief that the subject goods are liable to
\n\tseizure under section 110 of the Act. The decision of the Supreme
\n\tCourt in the case of State
\n\tof Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and<\/a> another,
\n\t(supra) does
\n\tnot carry the case of the respondents any further inasmuch as the
\n\tsaid decision would be applicable in case where prima facie there
\n\tare grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that the
\n\tseized goods were liable to confiscation, in which case the court
\n\thas to accept the officers belief and not in a case like the present
\n\tone where there are no grounds to justify the belief of the proper
\n\tofficer that the seized goods are liable to confiscation.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe light of the aforesaid observations, the Court is of the view
\n\tthat the petitioner is entitled to the grant of interim relief in
\n\tthe following terms:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tseizure memo as well as the panchnama both dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure
\n\t“A” collectively, to the petition) are hereby suspended
\n\tand the petitioner is permitted to clear the subject goods subject
\n\tto the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe
\n\tpetitioner shall pay fifty per cent of the customs duty assessable
\n\tunder the orders of final assessment on the basis of
\n\tnon-applicability of DFIA Scheme and to the extent of remaining
\n\tfifty per cent, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee to be
\n\tissued in favour of the President of India through the Commissioner
\n\tof Customs, Kandla. The petitioner shall furnish Bonds to the extent
\n\tof the value of the goods seized, which shall enure till final
\n\tadjudication, if any, made by the authorities, failing which, the
\n\tsame shall stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe
\n\taforesaid payment, furnishing of bank guarantee and bonds shall be
\n\twithout prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner
\n\tand the same shall abide by further orders that may be passed in the
\n\tpresent proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tUpon
\n\tcompliance of the aforesaid condition, the concerned respondent
\n\tshall forthwith return the DFIA licences and Transfer Release
\n\tAdvices lying with the said respondent to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tJoshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt
\n\tof the assessment orders, the petitioner would take steps for making
\n\tnecessary amendments in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\trequest made by Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel, the
\n\tmatter is adjourned to 11.4.2011 to enable him to file affidavit
\n\tin-reply on behalf of the customs authorities.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis clarified that the aforesaid order has been passed without
\n\tprejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tDirect
\n\tService is permitted.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
[BELA
\nTRIVEDI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice B.M.Trivedi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3031\/2011 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3031 of 2011 ========================================== BABOO RAM HARICHAND THROUGH PARTNER RAJESH SUBHASHCHANDRA – Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & […]<\/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-21850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaboo vs Union on 29 March, 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\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-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=\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-16T00:27:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T00:27:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2249,\"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\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T00:27:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 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":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 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\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-16T00:27:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T00:27:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011"},"wordCount":2249,"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\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011","name":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T00:27:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baboo-vs-union-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baboo vs Union on 29 March, 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\/21850","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=21850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}