{"id":22341,"date":"2010-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-01T11:18:37","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T05:48:37","slug":"himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1909\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1909 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 798 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 799 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 800 of 2009\n \n\n======================================\n \n\nHIMALAYA\nMACHINERY PVT LTD - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPUTY\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Opponent\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJ P SHAH, Senior Advocate with MR MANISH J SHAH for Assessee. \nMR\nMR BHATT, Senior Advocate with MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Revenue.\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.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/02\/2010 \nCOMMON ORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
In
\n\tall these four Tax Appeals, parties are common and hence, the same
\n\tare being disposed of by this common judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
Tax
\n\tAppeal No.1909 of 2008 is filed by the assessee under Section 260A
\n\tof the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1995   96 proposing to
\n\tformulate the following substantial question of law for the
\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court :-\n<\/p>\n
 Whether
\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\nright in law in upholding the validity of Section 147   148 notice
\n?\n<\/p>\n
Tax
\n\tAppeal Nos.798, 799 & 800 of 2009 are filed by the Revenue for
\n\tA.Y. 1996   97, 1997   98 and 1995   96 respectively.
\n\tQuestions proposed by the Revenue in all these three Tax Appeals are
\n\tas under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t TAX
\nAPPEAL NO. 798 OF 2009 (A.Y. 1996-97)<\/p>\n
 Whether
\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\nright in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the
\ndisallowance of Rs.60,00,000\/- being provision in respect of warranty
\nobligation, without appreciating that the expenditure is contingent
\nin nature which has not crystallized during the previous year
\nrelevant to the assessment year under consideration and was not
\nallowable in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case
\nof Shri Sajjan Mills Limited V\/s. CIT, 1985 (156) ITR 585 ?\n<\/p>\n
 TAX
\nAPPEAL NO.799 OF 2009 (A.Y. 1997-98)<\/p>\n
 Whether,
\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\nright in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the
\ndisallowance of Rs.10,38,751\/- being provision in respect of warranty
\nobligation ?\n<\/p>\n
 TAX
\nAPPEAL NO. 800 OF 2009 (A.Y. 1995-96)<\/p>\n
 Whether,
\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\nright in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the
\ndisallowance of Rs.2,34,00,000\/- being provision in respect of
\nwarranty obligation ?\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr. J. P. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Manish J.
\n\tShah for the assessee and Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate
\n\tappearing with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the
\n\tRevenue.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tfar as A.Y. 1995   96 is concerned, there are cross appeals, one
\n\tfiled by the assessee and other one is filed by the Revenue.  The
\n\tassessee is aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Tribunal with
\n\tregard to reopening of assessment.  The Tribunal has held that
\n\treopening of assessment is justified and hence, the assessee has
\n\tfiled Tax Appeal before this Court challenging the said finding of
\n\tthe Tribunal.  The Revenue has filed Tax Appeal for A.Y. 1995   96
\n\tchallenging the decision of the Tribunal deleting the disallowance
\n\tof Rs.234 Lacs being provision in respect of warranty obligation on
\n\tmerits.\n<\/p>\n
Tax
\n\tAppeals for A.Y. 1996   97 and 1997   98 are filed by the
\n\tRevenue involving identical issue which was involved in Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.800 of 2009.  So far as these two tax appeals are concerned,
\n\tlooking to the specific finding recorded by the learned CIT (Appeal)
\n\tas well as the Tribunal to the effect that actual expenses incurred
\n\twere more than the provision made by the assessee in its books of
\n\taccounts, Mr. Bhatt has rightly submitted that it cannot be said
\n\tthat any substantial question of law arises for the said two
\n\tassessment years.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tfar as Revenue’s Tax Appeal No.800 of 2009 is concerned, Mr. Bhatt
\n\thas submitted that the Tribunal’s decision is merely based on its
\n\town decision in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 1996   97 which
\n\tis in favour of the assessee.  The expenditure incurred by the
\n\tassessee is contingent in nature which is not crystallized till the
\n\tend of the previous year relevant to the current assessment year.
\n\tHe has, therefore, submitted that in view of the decision of the
\n\tApex Court in the case of Shri Sajjan Mills Limited V\/s. CIT, 1985
\n\t(156) ITR 585, contingent liability was not allowable.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tShah appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, has invited the
\n\tCourt’s attention to the finding recorded by the Tribunal after
\n\trelying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat
\n\tEarth Movers V\/s. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC) wherein the Court
\n\thas observed that if a business liability has ‘definitely’ arisen in
\n\tthe accounting year, the deduction should be allowed, though the
\n\tliability may have to be quantified and discharged at a further
\n\tdate.  What should be certain is the incurring of the liability.  It
\n\twill also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty
\n\tthough the actual quantification may not be possible.  In such
\n\tcircumstances, the liability cannot be contingent one and the
\n\tliability in presenti and would not make any difference if the
\n\tfuture date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is
\n\tnot certain.  The Tribunal has further recorded the finding that the
\n\texpenditure incurred by the assessee out of the provisions of this
\n\tyear as well as in the subsequent year, major portion of the
\n\texpenditure has been incurred by the assessee towards discharge of
\n\tits liability for warranty.  Even the figures were given for
\n\tsubsequent years.  So far as the provision made for A.Y. 1995   96
\n\tis concerned, the CIT (Appeals) has categorically recorded the
\n\tsubmissions made on behalf of the assessee which shows that
\n\tprovision of Rs.234 Lacs was actually inadequate as it was mostly
\n\tutilized within the next three years, still leaving unexpired
\n\twarranty period of two years.  While dealing with this submission of
\n\tthe assessee, the CIT (Appeals) has observed that out of Rs.234
\n\tLacs, Rs.186 Lacs have actually been spent in the succeeding two
\n\tyears were not charged to the profit and loss account of these two
\n\tyears.  The details of such expenses were also on record.  He has
\n\tfurther observed that after going through all the judicial decisions
\n\tand the details submitted, the claim of the assessee was required to
\n\tbe allowed on the ground that in the mercantile system of
\n\taccounting, a provision is required to be made for contractual
\n\tliability.\n<\/p>\n
Since
\n\tthe figures of expenditure for the subsequent three years are not
\n\tavailable on record, the Court has asked Mr. Shah to furnish the
\n\tfigures for subsequent three years.  Accordingly, statement is
\n\tproduced before the Court which indicates that as against the
\n\tprovisions of Rs.234 Lacs, the assessee has incurred an amount of
\n\tRs.3,30,74,857\/-.  The detailed break-up submitted by the assessee
\n\tis as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Asst.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tYear<\/p>\n
Expenditure
\n\t\t\t\t\tIncurred Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Cummulative
\n\t\t\t\t\tExpenses Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Excess
\n\t\t\t\t\tof expenditure over provision charged to P & L A\/c. Rs.\n<\/p>\n
1996-97<\/p>\n
86,20,677<\/p>\n
86,20,677<\/p>\n
1997-98<\/p>\n
82,36,136<\/p>\n
1,68,56,813<\/p>\n
1998-99<\/p>\n
57,22,016<\/p>\n
2,25,78,829<\/p>\n
1999-00<\/p>\n
92,48,059<\/p>\n
3,18,26,888<\/p>\n
84,26,888<\/p>\n
2000-01<\/p>\n
12,47,969<\/p>\n
3,30,74,857<\/p>\n
12,47,969<\/p>\n
TOTAL<\/p>\n
3,30,74,857<\/p>\n
96,74,857<\/p>\n
Since
\n\tthe assessee has incurred the expenditure more than the provision
\n\tmade, the assessee’s case would squarely fall within the ratio laid
\n\tdown by the Apex Court in the decision of the Bharat Earth Movers
\n\t(Supra). Looking to these figures, it cannot be said that the
\n\tprovision made by the assessee is not capable of being estimated
\n\twith reasonable certainty though the actual quantification was not
\n\tpossible.  Some objection was raised by Mr. Bhatt for the Revenue
\n\tthat since these figures were not on record, the same should not be
\n\ttaken into consideration in second appeal.  We are of the view that
\n\tthough the finding was recorded by the learned CIT (Appeal) that the
\n\tassessee has incurred the expenditure more than the provision made,
\n\tjust to substantiate this finding, the figures were called and there
\n\tis no dispute about those figures and hence, considering those
\n\tfigures, we are of the view that the issue raised in the Tax Appeal
\n\tis squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court and the
\n\tTribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the assessee.
\n\tWe, therefore, do not propose to formulate any substantial question
\n\tof law as framed by the Revenue.  The appeal is, therefore,
\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Since
\n\tthe Revenue’s appeal on merits is dismissed by the Court and the
\n\torder passed by the Tribunal is confirmed, the appeal filed by the
\n\tassessee challenging reopening of assessment has become infructuous
\n\tand hence, it is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe result, all the four Tax Appeals are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[RAJESH H. SHUKLA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
Savariya      <\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1909\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1909 of 2008 With TAX APPEAL No. 798 of 2009 With TAX APPEAL No. 799 of 2009 With TAX […]<\/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-22341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHimalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 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\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-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=\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-01T05:48:37+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T05:48:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1372,\"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\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T05:48:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 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":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 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\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-01T05:48:37+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T05:48:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010"},"wordCount":1372,"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\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010","name":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T05:48:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalaya-vs-unknown-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Himalaya vs Unknown on 1 December, 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\/22341","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=22341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22341\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}