{"id":226230,"date":"2008-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-26T13:33:49","modified_gmt":"2015-06-26T08:03:49","slug":"reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&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\/2727020\/2007\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\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 27270 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10127 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 29945 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nRELIANCE\nCOMMUNICATIONS LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nCOLLECTOR &amp; ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS &amp; 1 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nAMAR N BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR KB\nTRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with Ms.SANGEETA VISHEN, AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tin all the petitions, common question arise for consideration, they<br \/>\n\tare being considered by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No.10127\/07 is preferred by the petitioner for<br \/>\n\tchallenging the order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.2<br \/>\n\ttherein, whereby the Stamp Duty is assessed at Rs.50\/- per document<br \/>\n\talleged agreement and also penalty at Rs.15\/- per document of so<br \/>\n\tcalled agreement. Total amount is of Rs.3,56,53,280\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Dave,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner has declared before the<br \/>\n\tCourt if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of preferring<br \/>\n\trevision, the said revision may be examined on merits by the<br \/>\n\tcompetent authority and the petitioner without prejudice to the<br \/>\n\trights and contentions in the revision proceedings, shall deposit<br \/>\n\t25% of the requisite amount, subject to the outcome of the revision<br \/>\n\tproceeding.\n<\/p>\n<p>Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No.27270\/07 is preferred by the another Company<br \/>\n\tfor challenging the order dated 12.04.2004, whereby the Stamp Duty<br \/>\n\tassessed is at Rs.60\/- per alleged agreement and the penalty is at<br \/>\n\tRs.5\/- per document, total Rs.2,35,85,250\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Soparkar,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner also declared that the<br \/>\n\tamount is already paid by the petitioner without prejudice to the<br \/>\n\trights and contentions of the petitioner and the petitioner has no<br \/>\n\tobjection if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of revision,<br \/>\n\tbut it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that<br \/>\n\tthe revision be decided on merits and may not be dismissed on the<br \/>\n\tground of delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No.29945\/07 is preferred for challenging the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the respondent No.1 dated 19.10.2007, whereby after<br \/>\n\tremand, once again the Stamp Duty assessed is at Rs.50\/- per<br \/>\n\tenrollment form as if alleged agreement and the penalty imposed is<br \/>\n\tof Rs.150\/- per document, total Rs.3,52,00,000\/-.  It is an admitted<br \/>\n\tposition that earlier, the respondent No.1 had passed the order for<br \/>\n\tassessment of the duty and the penalty, against which the petitioner<br \/>\n\thad preferred petition before this Court and this Court had<br \/>\n\trelegated the petitioner to the revisional authority.  Thereafter,<br \/>\n\tthe revision was preferred and pending the revision, 25% of the<br \/>\n\tamount was deposited by the petitioner without prejudice to the<br \/>\n\trights and contentions in the revision.  The revisional authority<br \/>\n\tultimately had remanded the matter to the Collector, respondent No.1<br \/>\n\therein who has decided the matter by the impugned order dated<br \/>\n\t19.10.2007 and the present petition is directed against the said<br \/>\n\torder.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.Dave, Mr.Soparkar with Mr.Bhatt and Mr. Mehta, learned counsels<br \/>\n\tappearing for the respective petitioners and Mr. Trivedi, learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate General with Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned AGP for the State<br \/>\n\tAuthorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be recorded that in all the petitions, on behalf of the<br \/>\n\tState Authorities, the affidavit-in-reply has been filed raising the<br \/>\n\tpreliminary contention that there is alternative remedy of<br \/>\n\tpreferring revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority<br \/>\n\tof the State Government under Section 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act,<br \/>\n\t1958 (hereinafter the  Act  for short).  Not only that, but on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the State Authorities, the view taken by this Court vide<br \/>\n\torder dated 17.02.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 2124\/06,<br \/>\n\twhich was preferred by the petitioner of Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tNo.29945\/07 is pressed in service on behalf of the State Government.<br \/>\n\t It was therefore submitted that as the petitioner has an<br \/>\n\talternative remedy of preferring revision before the Chief<br \/>\n\tControlling Revenue Authority (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n\t Revisional Autority ) this Court may not entertain the petition<br \/>\n\tand may relegate the petitioner to approach before the Revisional<br \/>\n\tAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whereas<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsels contended inter<br \/>\n\talia that there is no authority to demand the Stamp Duty or compel<br \/>\n\tthe production of a document which is not presented before the<br \/>\n\tauthority.  It was also submitted that enrollment form cannot be<br \/>\n\ttermed as agreement nor can be termed as guarantee which would<br \/>\n\tattract Stamp Duty as considered by the Collector in the impugned<br \/>\n\torder.  It was also submitted that the petition involving identical<br \/>\n\tquestion is admitted by this Court being Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tNo.9414\/07, which is preferred by BSNL, another mobile service<br \/>\n\tprovider Company, of course after exhausting the remedy of revision<br \/>\n\tbefore the competent authority.  It was therefore submitted that<br \/>\n\tthis Court may examine the matter by admission of the petitions or<br \/>\n\tin alternative, if this Court is inclined to relegate the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners to prefer a revision before the revisional authority,<br \/>\n\tthe revision may be directed to be decided on merits and the same<br \/>\n\tmay not be dismissed on the ground of delay or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tsuch, various questions which may be required to be considered inter<br \/>\n\talia that whether a document or so called agreement or enrollment<br \/>\n\tform which is not produced before any authority for its<br \/>\n\tenforceability could be compelled to be produced by the authority<br \/>\n\tunder the Stamp Act for examination as to whether stamped or not and<br \/>\n\twhether the authority under the Act could compel the affixation of<br \/>\n\tthe Stamp Duty or recovery of the Stamp Duty and the penalty<br \/>\n\tthereof.  Further, even if the enrollment form is produced before<br \/>\n\tthe authority under the Act for verification and not for its<br \/>\n\tenforceability, whether insistence for payment of the Stamp Duty can<br \/>\n\tbe made by the authority under the Stamp Act is also one of the<br \/>\n\tquestion which deserves to be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\taforesaid is coupled with the contention of the learned counsel for<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners that so called enrollment form can neither be termed<br \/>\n\tas agreement nor can be termed as guarantee or any instrument which<br \/>\n\tmay attract Stamp Duty.  It appears that all such aspects are not<br \/>\n\tproperly considered by the Collector in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tthe matter is pertaining to a taxing statute, in normal<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, this Court by way of self imposed restriction would<br \/>\n\trelegate the parties to the authority under the very Act by way of<br \/>\n\tinbuilt mechanism of the said statue. As in the present case, so far<br \/>\n\tas the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.29945\/07 is<br \/>\n\tconcerned, it has already deposited the requisite amount for<br \/>\n\tentertainment of the revision when it was earlier relegated. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners of Special Civil Application No.27270\/07 has deposited<br \/>\n\tthe full amount and therefore, there cannot be any additional<br \/>\n\trequirement to deposit the amount in the event the revision is to be<br \/>\n\tentertained.  The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10127,<br \/>\n\tas recorded hereinabove, has declared before the Court that without<br \/>\n\tprejudice to the rights and contentions, it is agreeable to deposit<br \/>\n\t25% of the amount in the event, it is relegated to the revisional<br \/>\n\tauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under<br \/>\n\tthese circumstances, it appears that if all the petitioners are<br \/>\n\trelegated to the revisional authority against the impugned orders<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Collector, the same would be just and proper.  It<br \/>\n\tappears that the period of 90 days is over after the impugned order<br \/>\n\tis passed, but the petitioners have preferred the petition and the<br \/>\n\tpresent petitions are pending before this Court.  Further, this<br \/>\n\tCourt in various judgements have taken the view that the provisions<br \/>\n\tof Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply for entertainment of<br \/>\n\tthe appeal under the Act after the expiry of the period of<br \/>\n\tlimitation. Therefore, under these circumstances, it appears that<br \/>\n\tthe delay should not operate as a bar to the petitioners in<br \/>\n\tpreferring revision as various questions arise for consideration,<br \/>\n\tincluding the question of jurisdiction on the part of the authority<br \/>\n\tunder the Act for assessment of the Stamp Duty and of imposing<br \/>\n\tpenalty.  Hence, it would be just and proper to direct the<br \/>\n\trevisional authority to decide the revision on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above, the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners shall be at the liberty to prefer the revision<br \/>\n\tapplication within a period of four weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner of Special Civil Application No. 10127\/07 without<br \/>\n\tprejudice to the rights and contentions in the revision petition<br \/>\n\tshall simultaneously deposit 25% of the requisite amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,<br \/>\n\tas the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 27270\/07, has<br \/>\n\talready deposited full amount and as the petitioner of Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No.29945\/07 had already deposited 25% of the requisite<br \/>\n\tamount in the earlier revisional proceedings, they would not be<br \/>\n\trequired to deposit any additional amount for entertainment of the<br \/>\n\trevision petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\trevisional authority shall examine the matter and shall decide the<br \/>\n\tquestions including certain questions which are observed and<br \/>\n\treferred to hereinabove in the present order and shall pass speaking<br \/>\n\tand reasoned order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all<br \/>\n\tconcerned as early as possible, preferably within a period of three<br \/>\n\tmonths from the presentation of the revision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petitions<br \/>\n\tare disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.  No order as<br \/>\n\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (JAYANT PATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*bjoy<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2727020\/2007 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27270 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10127 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29945 of 2007 [&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-226230","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>Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - 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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-26T08:03:49+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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T08:03:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1451,\"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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T08:03:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - 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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-26T08:03:49+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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T08:03:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008"},"wordCount":1451,"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\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008","name":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T08:03:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-the-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reliance vs The on 21 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/226230","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=226230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}