{"id":223970,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-05T15:43:36","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T10:13:36","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\nFA\/333\/2010\t 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 333 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No.1733 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAHMEDABAD\nMUNICIPAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nNATUBHAI\nJUHABHAI DANTANI (VAGHRI) & 1 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nM\/S\nRJ RAWAL ASSOC. for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MS SHIVYA A DESAI for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nDefendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 -\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\nDate : 05\/04\/2010\n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tThis
\nAppeal is directed against the award dated 13th January,
\n2009 passed by the M.A.C.Tribunal (Auxi-II), Ahmedabad (Rural) in
\nM.A.C.P.No.1223 of 2006 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded,
\ntowards compensation, a sum of Rs.3,21,500\/- with running interest at
\nthe rate of 8.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition. Aggrieved by
\nthe impugned award and the said directions, the appellant-Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Transport Commissioner has preferred present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nprincipal contention, on which the Appeal has been preferred is that
\nthe learned Tribunal has committed error in taking the victim s
\nincome at Rs.3,000\/- p.m. particularly in absence of any evidence
\nregarding victim s income.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. Desai, learned advocate has appeared for the appellant-
\nAhmedabad Municipal Transport Commissioner and assailed the award
\nsubmitting, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal ought to have
\nconsidered victim s income only at Rs.15,000\/- p.a. and not at
\nRs.36,000\/- p.a. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the
\nprovisions under Clause 6 of Schedule II and under Section 163-A of
\nthe Act, the learned Tribunal should not have taken victim s income
\nat any rate higher than Rs.15,000\/-p.a., and ought to have allowed
\n1\/3rd deduction therefrom towards personal expenses. The
\nlearned counsel submitted that instead of strictly applying the
\nprovisions under Schedule II and Section 163-A of the Act, the
\nlearned Tribunal has, without any justification, assumed victim s
\nincome at Rs.3,000\/- p.m. and after allowing 1\/3rd
\ndeduction, taken his income at Rs.24,000\/- p.a. which is contrary to
\nthe statutory provisions and settled legal position and that
\ntherefore, the impugned award is bad in law. Any other contention
\nagainst the impugned award has not been raised.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\napplicants, heirs and legal representatives of one Smt. Somiben
\nNatubhai Dantani filed the MACP No.1223 of 2006 alleging, inter alia,
\nthat on 30th august, 2006 at about 12.00 p.m. when the
\nclaimant No.1 and said Smt. Somiben were passing through the market
\nand while they crossed the temple of Bahucharmata, a dumper bearing
\nregistration No.GRR-6545 which being driven by opponent No.1, in rash
\nand negligent manner, hit the said Smt. Somiben who, as a result of
\nthe said accident, fell down and the wheel of the dumper ran over
\nher. The claimants alleged that due to the injury suffered by said
\nSmt. Somiben on account of the said accident, she died. At the time
\nof accident, she was 42 years old and she was earning Rs.4,500\/- p.m.
\nBy engaging herself in household works and business. The Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Transport Services i.e. the appellant happened to be the
\nowner of the said vehicle\/dumper. The claimants also stated that said
\nSmt. Somiben died on account of the said accident. In this
\nbackground, the heris and legal representatives of the deceased filed
\nthe above mentioned claim petition claiming Rs.7,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAt
\nthe outset, it is necessary to mentioned that the appellant has not
\ndisputed the conclusions of the learned Tribunal with regard to the
\nage of the deceased and\/or the factum of accident or with regard to
\nthe fact that the victim died due to the accident which occurred on
\naccount of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Dumper)
\nbearing registration No.GRR-6545 driven by opponent No.1, in which
\nthe victim suffered serious injuries and subsequently, succumbed to
\nthe injuries and died.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nalso deserves to be noted that initially, the claim petition was
\npreferred under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, however, subsequently, it
\nwas converted into an application under Section 163-A of the Act and
\nthe claim for compensation was restricted to Rs.4,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\nlearned Tribunal, considering the fact that the claim petition was
\nconverted into a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act
\nobserved  that it was not necessary to address the issue regarding
\nnegligence more so, when neither the factum of the accident nor the
\ninvolvement of the vehicle and\/or the cause of the death were in
\ndispute. The opponents had also not raised any dispute with regard to
\nthe age of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt
\nemerges from the award that the learned counsel of present appellant
\nhad also consented or rather suggested that appropriate multiplier
\nwould be 15, however, the learned tribunal considered and decided to
\nadopt and apply multiplier 13 and the said decision regarding
\napplicable multiplier also was not disputed. Thus, before the learned
\nTribunal there was no dispute with regard to the appropriate
\nmultiplier and in present Appeal also, any issue on that count has
\nnot been raised.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nthis view of the matter, the only dispute which survives and which is
\nraised is with regard to the income of the victim. It would not be
\nout of place to take note of the observations and findings recorded
\nby the learned Tribunal in para 10 of the impugned award with regard
\nto the issue pertaining to income of the deceased. The said para 10
\nof the judgment reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
 10.\tLooking
\nto the arguments advanced by parties advocates, in this case
\npetitioners fail to produced any reliable documentary evidence to
\nprove the income of deceased. However, considering the nature of
\nwork, the income of the deceased can be considered at Rs.3,000\/- per
\nmonth and yearly income come to Rs.36,000\/- and if we deduct 1\/3
\namount for the personal expenses of the deceased, the yearly loss of
\ndependency comes to Rs.24,000\/-. As per the P.M. Report produced vide
\nEx.20, the deceased was aged about 50 years, so as per 2nd
\nSchedule of Section 163-A of M.V.Act, 13 multiplier is required to be
\napplied, so the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,12,000\/- under
\nthe head of loss of dependency. The petitioners are also entitled to
\nget Rs.2500\/- under the head of loss to the estate and Rs.2,000\/-
\nunder the head of funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is also
\nentitled to get Rs.5,000\/- under the head of loss of consortium.
\nThus, the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,21,500\/- as
\ncompensation under all heads.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt
\ncan be seen from the aforesaid discussion by the learned Tribunal
\nthat the claimants were not able to produce any document to prove
\nthat the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500\/- p.m. The learned
\nTribunal has, after taking into account the fact that there was total
\nlack of documentary evidence that the victim’s income was Rs.4,500\/-
\nand after considering that the only evidence available on record was
\nthat oral evidence of the appellant that the deceased was earning
\nRs.4,500\/- by engaging herself in house-hold work and business,
\nconsidered it appropriate to take victim’s income at Rs.3,000\/- per
\nmonth.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn
\nlight of the view taken by this Court in New India Assurance Co.
\nLtd. V\/s. Vallabhbhai Bhikhabhai (Decd.) Through His Heirs Josnaben @
\nJashuben Vallabhbhai & Ors. [2008 (4) GLR 2876] holding,
\ninter alia, that even in case of housewife income may be presumed to
\nbe not less than Rs.3,000\/- p.m.; hence in case of a woman engaged in
\ndoing household work, it would not be improper to consider Rs.3,000\/-
\np.m. as an average and notional income. Thus, I do not consider
\npresent case as a fit case to warrant any interference under Section
\n173 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIt
\nis noted from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal has noted
\nthat as per the FIR and panchnama, it was evident that the vehicle
\nebaring registration No.GRR-6545 was involved in the accident, which
\nresulted into the death of said Smt. Somiben. The learned Tribunal
\nalso noted that from the P.M. Report (Exh.22) it was also established
\nthat the death occurred due to the accident. The learned Tribunal has
\nalso noted that the claimants had not produced any reliable
\ndocumentary evidence from which the actual income of the deceased can
\nbe ascertained. The learned Tribunal, however, took into
\nconsideration the nature of the work, which was being done by the
\ndeceased and on that premise, the learned Tribunal has considered it
\nappropriate to consider deceased’s income at Rs.3,000\/- p.m. The
\nlearned Tribunal, upon taking Rs.3,000\/- p.m. i.e. Rs.36,000\/- p.a.
\nas victim’s income and upon considering the fact that the victim was
\na married woman of 42 year’s age and having her family, has deducted
\n1\/3rd amount towards personal expenses and considered
\ndeceased’s income at Rs.24,000\/- for determining the loss of
\ndependency. In this backdrop the learned advocate for appellant is
\nnot right in his submission that the learned Tribunal has committed
\nerror by not following proper and settled procedure for deciding the
\napplication under Section 163-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFurthermore,
\nit also emerges from the record that any serious dispute with regard
\nto the victim’s age was not raised by the opponents i.e. present
\nappellant when the claimants asserted that at the time of accident
\nthe victim was 42 year’s old. The learned Tribunal has also taken
\nnote of the fact that the P.M. Report mentioned that the victim’s age
\nwas about 50 years. However, the learned Tribunal, ultimately,
\nadopted multiplier 13 instead of 15. In absence of any contrary
\nevidence from the side of the appellant, coupled with the absence of
\nany serious dispute on this count before the learned Tribunal, the
\ndecision of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAccordingly,
\ntreating the victim s income at Rs.24,000\/- (after allowing 1\/3rd
\ndeduction towards personal expenses) and applying 13 multiplier, the
\nlearned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,12,000\/- towards loss of
\ndependency. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500\/- under the
\nhead of loss of estate and Rs.2,000\/- towards funeral expenses. The
\nlearned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000\/- towards the loss of
\nconsortium. In the result, the total compensation awarded by the
\nimpugned award comes to Rs.3,21,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tOn
\ncareful consideration of the award, it is noticed that so far as the
\nissue about the age of the deceased is concerned, the learned
\nTribunal has, in absence of any contrary evidence from the side of
\nthe opponent take into  consideration the age mentioned in the P.M.
\nReport and has proceeded on that premise. It cannot be said that the
\ndecision and\/or the approach is erroneous. Likewise, the learned
\nTribunal has, with regard to appropriate multiplier relied upon the
\n2nd Schedule under the Act and upon taking into account
\nits decision regarding deceased’s age the learned Tribunal has
\nadopted multiplier 13 and rejected the submission that multiplier 15
\nshould be adopted. Having regard to the provisions under 2nd
\nSchedule and the learned Tribunal’s conclusion with regard to the age
\nof the deceased, it is not possible to hold that the learned Tribunal
\nhas committed any error in adopting appropriate multiplier in the
\nfacts of present case. Actually, the said decisions are not under
\nchallenge and any dispute on that count has not been raised. So far
\nas the issue about income of the deceased is concerned, as noted
\nhereinabove earlier, this Court has taken the view that in case of
\nwoman doing household work, monthly income of Rs.3,000\/- cannot be
\nconsidered excessive or unreasonable and income of Rs.3,000\/- in such
\ncases can be considered as reasonable, average and notional income.
\nIn that view of the matter and in the facts of present case, I am not
\ninclined to entertain appellant’s objection with regard to the
\nlearned Tribunal’s decision of considering deceased’s income at
\nRs.3,000\/- p.m. The appellant has not been able to make out a case
\nagainst the learned Tribunal’s conclusion of taking deceased’s income
\nat Rs.3,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThus,
\nupon examination of the award impugned in the appeal, it emerges that
\nthere is no illegality or arbitrariness or manifest error in respect
\nof the amounts awarded towards loss of estate or funeral expenses or
\nloss of consortium, etc. and the same are in consonance with
\nprovisions under Section 163-A read with Schedule II thereof. Even
\nthe multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is on
\nconservative side and no fault can be found on that count as well.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThus,
\nI do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned award.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nAppeal, therefore, fails and the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of rejection of the main First Appeal, the civil application for
\nstay does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K.M.Thaker,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
kdc<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010 Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/333\/2010 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 333 of 2010 With CIVIL APPLICATION No.1733 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-223970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAhmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 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\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-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=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-05T10:13:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T10:13:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2087,\"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\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T10:13:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 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":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 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\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-05T10:13:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T10:13:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010"},"wordCount":2087,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010","name":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T10:13:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-natubhai-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Natubhai on 5 April, 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\/223970","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=223970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}