{"id":222716,"date":"2010-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-02T12:42:14","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T07:12:14","slug":"l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1045\/2010\t 3\/ 7\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. 1045 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nL\nH MEHTA &amp; 3 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKANDLA\nPORT TRUST &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNV ANJARIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 4. \nMR DHAVAL D VYAS for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n3. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Mr. NV Anjaria on behalf of petitioner, learned<br \/>\n\tsenior advocate Mr. KM Patel with learned advocate Mr. DD Vyas on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthis matter, notice has been issued by this Court on 4\/2\/2010 made<br \/>\n\tit returnable on 19\/2\/2010.  Meanwhile, ad interim relief in terms<br \/>\n\tof para 10(I) granted on condition that if petitioner eventually<br \/>\n\tfailed in this petition, they shall make necessary payments.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered averment made in this petition and also considered<br \/>\n\tchallenged made by present petitioner in present petition. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner no. 2 is Gandhidham Property Dealers Association through<br \/>\n\tits President LH Mehta who is petitioner no. 1. The respondent is<br \/>\n\tKandla Port Trust and his officer as well as Tariff Authority for<br \/>\n\tMajor Ports   an authority created under Major Port Trusts Act,<br \/>\n\t1963.  The relevant averment made in petition in para 1\/1 to 1\/4 are<br \/>\n\tquoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 1.1\tPetitioner<br \/>\n\tNo. 1 LH Mehta is resident of Gandhidham and he is the lessee owner<br \/>\n\tof leasehold rights of residential plot No. 111, Sector 2 in the<br \/>\n\ttownship of Gandhidham.  He is a social worker and President of<br \/>\n\tpetitioner No. 2 Association. He is before this Honourable Court in<br \/>\n\this individual capacity as well as in the capacity of President.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.2\tPetitioner<br \/>\n\tno. 2 Gandhidham Property Dealers Association is an association<br \/>\n\tformed with an object to provide a platform to the grievances of<br \/>\n\tinhabitants of the town relating to property matters and the<br \/>\n\tassociation collectively works to solve property related grievances<br \/>\n\tof the individuals by representing before the authorities like<br \/>\n\tKandla Port Trust, Sindhu Resettlement Corporation, Gandhidham<br \/>\n\tMunicipality, Gandhidham Development Authority or other concerned<br \/>\n\tauthority, government or semi government.  The role of petitioner<br \/>\n\tno. 3 Association as a helping hand to the inhabitants of the town<br \/>\n\tof Gandhidham is important in as much as the whole town of<br \/>\n\tGandhidham and surrounding area comprise of plots of land, as<br \/>\n\telaborated hereinafter, which was developed originally with a view<br \/>\n\tto boost the coming up of the port of Kandla after independence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.3\tPetitioner<br \/>\n\tNo. 3 is the lessee owner of leasehold rights of Plot No. A-119 from<br \/>\n\tKandla Port Trust, in the area known as Bhaipratapnagar, situated at<br \/>\n\tGandhidham. He occupies the plot having purchased from Smt.<br \/>\n\tDevishanker Bachwani by registered deed dated 25\/1\/2006.  Petitioner<br \/>\n\tno. 4 is a member of Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce and Industries,<br \/>\n\tGandhidham and is actively associated with various social and<br \/>\n\tGandhidham Township activities.  He is a lessee owner of leasehold<br \/>\n\trights of plot at Adipur Kachchh and his locus standi as well as the<br \/>\n\tstatus of plot held by him bear a similar nexus with the plot in the<br \/>\n\tGandhidham Township.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.4\tAll the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners are in their locus standi similarly aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\teffect and consequence of the decision impugned in the petition and<br \/>\n\tthe nature of challenge, which are stated in paragraph 3<br \/>\n\thereinafter.  The issue raised in the petition is with regard to the<br \/>\n\tlegality of Transfer Fee levied by the respondents and validity of<br \/>\n\texercise of powers for the same under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.<br \/>\n\tThe issue and the subject matter affects the entire populace of the<br \/>\n\tplot holders in the Gandhidham Township and all the residents and<br \/>\n\tinhabitants in the Township are affected persons.  The petitioners<br \/>\n\therein therefore, bring their grievances before this Honourable<br \/>\n\tCourt not only in their own capacity as aggrieved persons, but also<br \/>\n\trespectfully submit that the present petition may be treated in<br \/>\n\trepresentation capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure, 1908 and\/or the principles analogous thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tagainst that affidavit in reply is filed by respondent no. 1 at page<br \/>\n\t192, which has been corrected and amended copy placed on record by<br \/>\n\trespondent no. 1, which is at page 210.  The relevant para 3 and 4<br \/>\n\tare quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 3.\tIt is<br \/>\n\trespectfully submitted that, petition in the natures as filed, is<br \/>\n\tnot maintainable.  It is submitted that, considering the nature of<br \/>\n\trelief&#8217;s prayed by the petitioner, it would essentially be a public<br \/>\n\tinterest litigation, which is for some oblique reason not filed so.<br \/>\n\tIt is submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable to be<br \/>\n\tfiled in the representative capacity that too on invocation of Order<br \/>\n\t1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tIt is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the nature of relief prayed for is essentially within<br \/>\n\tthe contractual domain.  It is submitted that the prayers are<br \/>\n\tessentially challenging the contractual terms, of lease deed and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, it would be for the petitioner, if within a right, to<br \/>\n\tfile an appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. I say that,<br \/>\n\tin the circumstances the writ petition involving extra ordinary<br \/>\n\tprerogative and discretionary jurisdiction of this Honourable Court,<br \/>\n\twould not be maintainable for such a challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\taffidavit in rejoinder filed by petitioner against affidavit in<br \/>\n\treply of respondent no. 1 is at page 205.  The averment made by both<br \/>\n\tparties and challenged of petitioner is at page 43 to 48, which are<br \/>\n\tquoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t The present<br \/>\n\tpetition seeks to place before this Hon&#8217;ble Court threefold<br \/>\n\tchallenges as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i)\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetitioners challenge the very rationale, legality and validity of,<br \/>\n\tand the authority in law of the respondents in levying Transfer Fee<br \/>\n\tin the nature of Development Charges at every instance of inter-se<br \/>\n\ttransfer of plot between private persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)\tPetitioners<br \/>\n\tchallenge the Resolution by the Board of Trustees of Kandla Port<br \/>\n\tTrust dated 07\/07\/2009 and the consequential circular dated<br \/>\n\t29\/10\/2009 whereby the Transfer Fee in respect of transfer and sale<br \/>\n\tof leasehold rights of a particular plot is sought to be levied<br \/>\n\tretrospectively with effect from 01\/01\/2004, thereby demanding the<br \/>\n\tpayment of Transfer Fee also in respect of those transactions of<br \/>\n\ttransfer\/sale already completed in all respects in past.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)\tIt is the<br \/>\n\tfurther challenge without prejudice and in the alternative to (i)<br \/>\n\tand (ii) above that even if the respondents are presumed for the<br \/>\n\tsake of arguments to have powers to charge Transfer Fee in respect<br \/>\n\tof the transactions of transfers of plots, the basis and the<br \/>\n\tcriteria adopted for determining the Transfer Fee is artificial,<br \/>\n\tunrealistic, arbitrary and very antithetic to the underlying purpose<br \/>\n\tof levy of Transfer Fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t*The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners&#8217; challenge are on the grounds broadly stated as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The<br \/>\n\trespondent Kandla Port Trust is only an agent and manager on behalf<br \/>\n\tof the Government of India in respect of leasing out of the subject<br \/>\n\tmatter lands. Therefore, respondents are not entitled in law for<br \/>\n\tlevy of Transfer Fee.  Even Kandla Port Trust&#8217;s authority to act as<br \/>\n\tan agent is not being established in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Even if it<br \/>\n\tis assumed that, respondent Kandla Port Trust has such authority on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of Govt. of India, the lands are claimed to have been vested<br \/>\n\tunder the provisions of Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The powers under<br \/>\n\tthe Act and more particularly sections 47 to 50 of the Act can be<br \/>\n\tused for the purposes of the Port and port related activity so as to<br \/>\n\tentitle the Kandla Port Trust to levy Port tariffs and charges and<br \/>\n\tnot otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) Therefore,<br \/>\n\tneither Respondent no. 3 Tariff Authority of India can not be said<br \/>\n\tto be validly drawing powers to approve Transfer Fee to be leviable<br \/>\n\tby Kandla Port Trust in the plots within the Gandhidham Township and<br \/>\n\tpurported exercise such powers from Sections 47 to 50 or any other<br \/>\n\tprovision of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, tantamount to<br \/>\n\tcolorable exercise of powers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) The<br \/>\n\tDevelopment Charges having been already levied in the first<br \/>\n\tinstance, the Transfer Fee based upon the Development Charges can<br \/>\n\tnot be justified in as much as after initial leasing the plot, the<br \/>\n\tKPT does not play any role and does not in any way contribute to the<br \/>\n\tdevelopment of the plot. The charging of Transfer Fee in connection<br \/>\n\twith every subsequent transfer is irrational. It amounts to<br \/>\n\tprofiteering. It is also de hors the powers on law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e)\tThe Transfer<br \/>\n\tFee in its nature of levy becomes fee without quid pro quo.  In the<br \/>\n\tfacts and circumstances, it is like a compulsory exaction, a kind of<br \/>\n\ttax without authority in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f)\tThe levy of<br \/>\n\tTransfer Fee is unreasonable fetter on disposition.  It is in<br \/>\n\tcontravention of provisions of the Transfer of Proper Act, 1882.<br \/>\n\tThe same is also violative of Article 300 A read with Article 14 of<br \/>\n\tthe Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(g)  The<br \/>\n\tretrospective levy of Transfer Fee from 01\/01\/2004 contemplated in<br \/>\n\tthe circular at Annexure A is not permissible in law.  Further, in<br \/>\n\tany case, can not be justified in law by any yardstick in its<br \/>\n\tcriteria of levy as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tlight of aforesaid pleadings between parties and considering<br \/>\n\tchallenged made by petitioner, according to my opinion, this matter<br \/>\n\tmay be considered as  Public Interest Litigation.  Therefore,<br \/>\n\tRegistry is directed to place this matter before Hon&#8217;ble Chief<br \/>\n\tJustice of Gujarat High Court for necessary order.  Meanwhile, ad<br \/>\n\tinterim relief granted by this Court shall remain continue till next<br \/>\n\tdate of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1045\/2010 3\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1045 of 2010 ========================================================= L H MEHTA &amp; 3 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus KANDLA PORT TRUST &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= [&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-222716","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - 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\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-02T07:12:14+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T07:12:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1480,\"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\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\",\"name\":\"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T07:12:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L vs Kandla on 17 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - 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\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-02T07:12:14+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T07:12:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010"},"wordCount":1480,"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\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010","name":"L vs Kandla on 17 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T07:12:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-vs-kandla-on-17-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L vs Kandla on 17 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/222716","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=222716"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222716\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}