{"id":22824,"date":"2008-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-25T10:35:53","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T05:05:53","slug":"vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/2941\/2007\t 11\/ 13\tORDER \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. 2941 of 2007\n \n\n \n======================================\n\n\n \n\nREGIONAL\nDIRECTOR \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHRI\nANANG A. LALBHAI MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR HEMANT S SHAH for\nAppellant. \nMR KM PATEL for Respondents.\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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\nappellant Corporation has challenged judgment and order of the
\nEmployees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, dated 20th
\nSeptember 2005, whereby the notice issued by the Corporation dated
\n26th October 1995 was declared to be illegal and contrary
\nto law.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nfacts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nrespondents herein are the original applicants, who have filed an
\napplication before Employees State Insurance Court and stated that
\nAshok Spintex is a division of Arvind Mills Limited and that
\napplicant is an undertaking registered under the Bombay Industrial
\nRelations Act and provisions of Employees State Insurance Act are
\nalso applicable to the applicant.  Therefore, all the employees of
\nthe applicant respondent herein have been covered under Employees
\nState Insurance Scheme.  It is also the case of the respondents
\nherein in that application that its employees have been classified
\ninto different categories, which includes apprentice appointed under
\nthe Apprentice Act and Standing Orders.   It is also the case of the
\noriginal applicant that inspector of State Insurance Corporation
\ninspected the applicant company on 23-11-1994 and found that
\n‘apprentices’ have not been included as employees under Section 2 (9)
\nof the Act and, therefore, from the date of joining their
\ncontribution may be sent immediately.  Therefore, Deputy Regional
\nDirector gave a notice dated 25-8-1995 to the original applicant,
\nwhich was replied on 25-9-1995 and it is stated that the original
\napplicant is not responsible to make contribution on behalf of the
\napprentices because they are not the employees, who are included in
\nthe provisions of Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act
\nand as they are trainees, there is no relationship of employer and
\nemployee between the applicant and such employees.  It is also stated
\nthat the amount paid to them is stipend, which cannot be considered
\nas ‘wages’.  It is also the case of the applicant therein that
\nwithout considering said reply or the documentary evidence produced
\nby it, notice dated 26-10-1995 was issued to the applicant.  Against
\nthis notice, the respondents herein – original applicants have filed
\nESI Application No.41 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\napplication was resisted by the appellant Corporation by filing
\nreply at Exh.14, whereby the averments made in the application were
\ndenied.  It is also stated by the Corporation that as per the
\ndefinition of ‘apprentice’, there should be an agreement between the
\nparties and it should have been sent to apprenticeship registrar,
\nhowever, since the original applicant has not complied with this
\nprovision, it is liable to make contribution towards such employees
\nand the application filed by it is required to be dismissed.  After
\nframing issues and after hearing both the sides and considering the
\nmaterial on record, it is found by ESI Court that notice dated
\n26-10-1995 is illegal and the Corporation is not entitled to ask for
\ncontribution on the amount of stipend which is paid to the trainees.
\nAccordingly, notice dated 26-10-1995 was quashed and the application
\nfiled by the original applicant was allowed.  Being aggrieved by it,
\nthe appellant has filed present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tI
\nhave heard learned advocates appearing for both the sides.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nlearned advocate for the appellant has relied upon provisions of
\nEmployees State Insurance Act and particularly, Section 2 Sub-section
\n(9) thereof, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S2
\n(9). \t?Semployee?? means any person employed for wages in or in
\nconnection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this
\nAct applies and –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\twho
\nis directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or
\nincidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the
\nfactory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee
\nin the factory or establishment or elsewhere, or <\/p>\n
(ii)\twho
\nis employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of
\nthe factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work
\ncarried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or
\nestablishment; or<\/p>\n
(iii)\twhose
\nservices are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal
\nemployer by the person with whom the person whose services are so
\nlent or lent on hire has entered into a contract of service.\n<\/p>\n
and
\nincludes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the
\nadministration of the factory or establishment or any part,
\ndepartment or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials
\nfor, or the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or
\nestablishment or any person engaged as an apprentice, not being an
\napprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act No.52 of
\n1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment; but does
\nnot include:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tany
\nmember of the Indian naval, military or air forces; or<\/p>\n
b)\tany
\nperson so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime
\nwork) exceed (such wages as may be prescribed by the Central
\nGovernment) a month;\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime
\nwork) exceed (such wages as may be prescribed by the Central
\nGovernment a month at any time after and not before the beginning of
\nthe contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the
\nend of that period)??.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tHe
\nhas also relied upon Section 2 Sub-section (22) of said Act,  which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
2(22)
\n?S wages?? means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an
\nemployee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or
\nimplied, were fulfilled and includes [any payment to an employee in
\nrespect of any period of authorized leave, lock ?  out, strike which
\nis not illegal or lay-off and] other additional remuneration, if any
\n[paid at intervals nor exceeding two months] but does not include-\n<\/p>\n
any
\n\tcontribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident
\n\tfund, or under this Act;\n<\/p>\n
any
\n\ttravelling allowances or the value of any travelling concession;\n<\/p>\n
any
\n\tsum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed
\n\ton him by the nature of his employment; or<\/p>\n
any
\n\tgratuity payable on discharge.\n<\/p>\n
6.2\tIn
\nview of above provision, learned advocate for the appellant submitted
\nthat the apprentices are covered under the Employees State Insurance
\nAct unless respondent herein proves that by an agreement with the
\nemployees under the Apprentice Act, they are not covered under the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned
\nadvocate for the appellant submitted that the agreement under the
\nApprentice Act, which is at Exh.42, 43 and 44 is wrongly relied by
\nthe ESI Court and the agreement is entered under Standing Order and
\nthe same is not under the Apprentice Act.  Counsel for the appellant
\nhas stated that the respondent company is not paying contribution
\neven for its regular employees.  However, this statement runs
\ncontrary to the notice dated 25th August 1995 inasmuch as
\nthe Deputy Regional Director himself has observed that the
\ncontribution paid for employees do not include vehicle and leave
\ntravel allowance.  In that view of the matter, submission of the
\nlearned advocate is devoid of any merits.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tLearned
\nadvocate for the appellant has placed reliance on paragraph 5 of
\ncross-examination of Jaymalbhai, who is representative of management
\nof the respondent mill, wherein it has been stated that though he is
\nprepared to produce agreement with apprentice, he has not produced it
\non record and, therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn
\nagainst the concerned employer.  Learned advocate for the appellant
\nhas also contended that since the agreement was not produced pursuant
\nto notice at Exh.30, action taken by the appellant ?  corporation is
\njust and proper.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\tThe
\nargument for the appellant that adverse inference is required to be
\ndrawn against respondent ?  employer for not providing agreement of
\nappointment of apprentices under the Standing Orders cannot be
\naccepted because the impugned show-cause notice dated 26-10-1995,
\nExh.32, issued by appellant Corporation was for non-payment of
\ncontribution only in respect of apprentices engaged as per the
\nStanding Orders.  When the notice itself proceeds on the basis that
\napprentices are engaged under Standing Orders, there was no necessity
\nto produce agreements of engagement of apprentices under the Standing
\nOrders.  Moreover, the record shows that said agreements are provided
\nat Exh.42,43 and 44.  Thus, the argument for drawing adverse
\ninference cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\n\tOn the other hand, learned advocate,  Mr.Patel, appearing for the
\nrespondent has drawn my attention to notice at Exh.32, which reads as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
?SI
\nam directed to inform you that the factory\/establishment known as
\nM\/s. The Ashoka Mills Ltd., A’bad failed to comply with the
\nprovisions of the EST Act, in respect of the following items inspite
\nof several letters from this office.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tSubmissions
\nof Declaration Forms under EST (General) Regulation No.11, 12 &
\n14 in respect of some of the employees. – all apprentice engaged
\nunder Standing Order.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSubmission
\nof return of contribution for the wage period from ________ to
\n_________ included in the
\ncontribution period ended on,   since their dtd. Appointment
\nin r\/o apprentice under S.Ord.\n<\/p>\n
as
\nrequired under Regulation 26 of the ESI (General) Regulation, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tPayment
\nof contribution for the wage period from since their dts. Of
\nappointment in apprentices as required under Regulation 31 of the
\nESI (General) Regulation, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSubmission
\nof particulars in Form-01 as required under section 2-A read with
\nRegulation, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tProduction
\nof records for inspection as required under section 45 of the Act
\n under S for the wage period from _____ to _______ inspite of
\nInsurance Inspector’s request on ____________ this office request in
\nregistered letter dated _____ for inspection.??\n<\/p>\n
9.1\tHe
\nsubmitted that it is clear from said notice that it was only for the
\napprentice under Standing Orders and there was no notice under the
\nApprentice Act or for non-payment of contribution of regular
\nemployee.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n\tMr.Patel also submitted that Jaymalbhai, who is representative of
\nmanagement of the respondent mill, in paragraph 7 of his
\ncross-examination has clearly stated that if the persons appointed
\nunder the Apprentice Act meet with an accident then they are paying
\nthem compensation, for which a separate insurance is taken with New
\nIndia Insurance Company. It is also stated by him that for the
\napprentices also, who are appointed under the Standing Orders, they
\nhave taken insurance.  Thus no claim is made for apprentices from
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr.Patel,
\nhas relied upon various judgments of Supreme Court and different High
\nCourts.  He stated that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in
\nthe case of  Mukesh K. Tripathi & Ors. v. Sr. Divisional
\nManager, LIC,<\/a> reported
\nin 2004 III LLJ 740, the apprentice, which are appointed
\nunder the Apprentice Act or under a private scheme are not workmen.
\nHe has relied upon paragraphs 24, 27, 28, 36, 39  and 42 of the said
\njudgment, which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S24.\tFrom
\na perusal of the award dated 28-5-1996 of the Tribunal, it does not
\nappear that the Appellant herein had adduced any evidence whatsoever
\nas regard the nature of his duties so as to establish that he had
\nperformed any skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational
\nduties. The offer of appointment dated 16-7-1987 read with the Scheme
\nclearly proved that he was appointed as an apprentice and not to do
\nany skilled, unskilled, manual, technical or operational job. The
\nonus was on the Appellant to prove that he is a workman. He failed to
\nprove the same. Furthermore, the duties and obligations of a
\nDevelopment Officer of the Corporation by no stretch of imagination
\ncan be held to be performed by an apprentice.\n<\/p>\n
27.
\nThe expression ‘Apprentice’ has been included in the definition of
\n‘workman’ contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
\n1947 but by reason of a subsequent Parliamentary legislation, namely,
\nApprentices Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), the term ‘apprentice’ has been
\ndefined in Section 2(aa) to mean ‘a person who is undergoing
\napprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a
\ncontract of apprenticeship. Section 18 of the 1961 Act provides that
\napprentices are trainees and not workers save as otherwise provided
\nin the Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 18 of the 1961 Act read
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“(a)
\nevery apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated
\ntrade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker; and<\/p>\n
(b)
\nthe provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to
\nor in relation to such apprentice.”\n<\/p>\n
28.\tThe
\nterm ’employee’ under various labour laws has been defined by
\ndifferent expressions but Section 18 of the 1961 Act carves out an
\nexception to the applicability of labour laws in the event the
\nconcerned person is an apprentice as contra-distinguished from the
\nexpressions ‘worker’, ’employee’ and ‘workman’, used in different
\nstatutes.\n<\/p>\n
36.
\nA ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by
\nthe provisions of the Apprenticeship Act but must further establish
\nthat he is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any
\nwork contemplated in the definition. Even in a case where a period of
\napprenticeship is extended, a further written contract carrying out
\nsuch intention need not be executed. But in a case where a person is
\nallowed to continue without extending the period of apprenticeship
\neither expressly or by necessary implication and regular work is
\ntaken from him, he may become a workman. A person who claims himself
\nto be an apprentice has certain rights and obligations under the
\nstatute.\n<\/p>\n
39.
\nThe interpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve
\na broader meaning having employed the word ‘includes’ but therefor
\nalso it is necessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and
\npurport of the statute which takes him out of the said definition.
\nFurthermore, the interpretation section begins with the words ‘unless
\nthe context otherwise requires.\n<\/p>\n
42.\tThe
\nquestion as to who would answer the description of the term ‘workman’
\nfell for consideration before this Court in Dharangadhra Chemical
\nWorks Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and others<\/a>, AIR 1957 SC
\n264:1957-I-LLJ-477,  wherein this Court held at p.480 of LLJ :\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nessential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of
\nthis definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that
\nindustry, that there should be, in other words, an employment of his
\nby the employer and that there should be the relationship between the
\nemployer and him as between the employer and employee or master and
\nservant. Unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of
\nhis being a workman within the definition of the term as contained in
\nthe Act.””\n<\/p>\n
12.\tMr.Patel
\nhas relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of  The
\nEmployees’ State Insurance Corporation and another v. The Tata
\nEngineering & Co., Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another
\nreported in AIR 1976 SC 66 wherein
\nit is held as under in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 :\n<\/p>\n
?S11.\n<\/p>\n
From the terms of the agreement it is clear that apprentices are mere
\ntrainees for a particular period for a distinct purpose and the
\nemployer is not bound to employ them in their works after the period
\nof training is over. During the apprenticeship they cannot be said to
\nbe employed in the work of the company or in connection with the work
\nof the company. That would have been so if they were employed in a
\nregular way by the company. On the other hand the purpose of the
\nengagement under the particular scheme is only to offer training
\nunder certain terms and conditions. Besides, the apprentices are not
\ngiven wages within the meaning of that term under the Act. If they
\nwere regular employees under the Act, they would have been entitled
\nto additional remuneration such as daily allowance and other
\nallowances, which are available to the regular employees. We are,
\ntherefore, unable to hold that the apprentice is an employee within
\nthe meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\nIncidentally we may note that Section 18 of the Apprentices Act,
\n1961, provides that-\n<\/p>\n
“Save
\nas otherwise provided in this Act, every apprentice undergoing
\napprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment
\nshall be a trainee and not a worker……”\n<\/p>\n
13.
\nThe concept of apprenticeship is, therefore, fairly known and has now
\nbeen clearly recognised in the Apprentices Act. Apart from that, as
\nwe have noticed earlier, the terms and conditions under which those
\napprentices are engaged do not give any scope for holding that they
\nare employed in the work of the company or in connection with its
\nwork for wages within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Act. The
\nappeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be, however, no
\norder as to costs.??\n<\/p>\n
13.\tMr.Patel
\nhas also relied on the decision of Employees’ Insurance Court, Bombay
\nin the case of  Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Bombay
\nv. Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd., Bombay<\/a>
\nreported in 1963 II LLJ 104 wherein
\nafter referring to various provisions of the Employees’ State
\nInsurance Act and various decisions of different Courts, it is held
\nthat apprentice is not an employee within the meaning of the Act and
\nstipend or allowance paid to him are not wages as per the provisions
\nof the Act.  It is also held that merely because stipend or allowance
\nis received by an apprentice, he does not become an employee as per
\nthe provisions of the Act and no contribution is payable in respect
\nof such apprentices.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tMr.Patel
\nhas also relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
\ncase of  Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad v.
\nAndhra Prabha Pvt. Ltd., Vijaynagar<\/a>
\nreported in 2000 II LLJ 709 wherein
\nthe Court has held that stipend paid to the trainees could not answer
\nthe definition of wages as per Section 2 (22) of the ESI Act.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tHe
\nalso relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
\nof  Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd., Birlagam Nagda v.
\nRegional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Indore<\/a>
\nreported
\nin 2005 I LLJ 482 wherein
\nthe Court has held that apprentice is not an employee within the
\nmeaning of Section 2 (9) of the Act and, therefore, they cannot be
\nequated with employees working in the company for the purpose of Act
\nin question.  It is also held that overtime amount paid by employer
\nwas part of ‘wages’ as defined in Section 2  (22) of the Employees’
\nState Insurance Act.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tMr.Patel
\nhas also relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
\ncase of  Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Ors. v.
\nChirala Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.<\/a>
\nreported in 2005 II CLR 501 wherein
\nit is held that trainees cannot be treated as employees of the
\nestablishment where they are undergoing training.  A similar view is
\nalso taken by High Court of Karnataka in the case of  Regional
\nDirector, ESI Corporation v. M\/s. F.Fibre Mangalore (P) Ltd.
\nreported in 1985 I LLJ 247
\nupon which reliance is also placed by Mr.Patel.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tMr.Patel
\nhas further relied on the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in
\nthe case of  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance
\nCorporation and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
reported in 2006 I CLR 359 wherein
\nalso it is held that the appellant is not liable to pay ESI
\ncontribution on the stipend paid to the apprentices.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIt
\nis also required to be noted that on facts it is established that by
\nagreement under Standing Orders employees are protected by insurance
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tI
\nhave considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and
\nalso gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant
\ndocuments.   As held in the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi (Supra) the
\ninterpretation clause contained in a statute although may deserve a
\nbroader meaning having employed the word ‘includes’ but it is
\nnecessary to keep in view the scheme of the object and purport of the
\nstatute which takes him out of the said definition.  The
\ninterpretation of the section in question begins with the words
\n?Sunless the context otherwise requires??.  After considering the
\nevidence on record and after considering the judgments of different
\nHigh Court and Supreme Court, the Court below came to the conclusion
\nthat apprentice under the Apprentice Act or under the Standing
\nOrders are not included within the definition of ‘workmen’ and their
\nstipend or training expenses are not included within the meaning of
\n‘wages’, more particularly when they have taken insurance for the
\nemployee who are covered under the Apprentice Act under the
\nagreement.  I am in complete
\nagreement with the reasonings adopted and finding arrived at the
\ntrial Court and no evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view of
\nthe matter.  Apart from that learned Advocate for the appellant is
\nnot able to point out any question of law much less substantial
\nquestion of law involved in the appeal.  Therefore, I do not find any
\nreason to interfere with the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn
\nthe premises aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.  No order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
(K.S.Jhaveri,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
*malek<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court ====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/2941\/2007 11\/ 13 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2941 of 2007 ====================================== REGIONAL DIRECTOR Versus SHRI ANANG A. LALBHAI MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance […]<\/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-22824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - 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\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-25T05:05:53+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T05:05:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3432,\"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\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\",\"name\":\"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T05:05:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - 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\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-25T05:05:53+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T05:05:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008"},"wordCount":3432,"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\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008","name":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T05:05:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-km-patel-for-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"====================================== vs Mr Km Patel For on 25 July, 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:\/\/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\/22824","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=22824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}