{"id":229380,"date":"2008-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-10T11:09:25","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T05:39:25","slug":"g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/4867\/2008\t 9\/ 10\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. 4867 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nG\nS R T C - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLILABEN\nMATHURBHAI BARIYA &amp; 3 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nVASAVDATTA BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR MOHSIN M HAKIM for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3. \nNone\nfor Defendant(s) :\n4, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt on behalf of appellant and<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr.M.M.Hakim appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondents-claimants. In First Appeal, the Corporation has<br \/>\nchallenged the award passed by Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in<br \/>\nM.A.C.Petition No.1762 of 1999 vide Exh.29 dated 21.06.2007. The<br \/>\nClaim Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,09,000\/- in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent-claimants with 7.5 per cent interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.<br \/>\nLearned advocate Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt submitted that Claims Tribunal<br \/>\nhas committed gross error in not deciding contributory negligence of<br \/>\ndriver of Tempo. She submitted that driver was examined before the<br \/>\nClaim Tribunal and he gave the evidence even though, his evidence was<br \/>\nnot relied or believed by Claims Tribunal. She submitted that<br \/>\naccident occurred because of rashness and negligence of Tempo driver<br \/>\nnot the negligence of S.T.Bus driver. She submitted that very<br \/>\nS.T.Bus, one motor-cycle was going ahead and Tempo was coming from<br \/>\nopposite side with excessive speed dashed with motor-cycle and then<br \/>\ndashed with S.T.Bus and that is how the Tempo was turned turtled in<br \/>\nthe said accident. Even though Claims Tribunal has decided the matter<br \/>\nholding negligence of S.T.Bus driver, which is contrary to record.<br \/>\nShe read over the statement of driver recorded by police and she read<br \/>\nthe Panchnama before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr.Hakim appearing on behalf of respondents-claimants<br \/>\nsubmitted that Claims Tribunal has rightly examined the question of<br \/>\nnegligence and there was no contributory negligence of driver of<br \/>\nTempo because S.T.Bus driver while overtaking motor-cycle, the bus<br \/>\ndriver was dashed with Tempo, which resulted into serious accident<br \/>\nand Tempo was turned turtle that is how accident occurred.  Looking<br \/>\nto the Panchnama, it is clear that motor-cycle was lying on the road<br \/>\ninside at the gate of S.T.Bus of Conductor side, therefore according<br \/>\nto his submission that S.T.Bus driver was 100% negligent because he<br \/>\novertake motor-cycle and while overtaking motor-cycle, he dashed with<br \/>\nTempo and accident was occurred.  He submitted that evidence of<br \/>\ndriver before Claim Tribunal, is contrary to Panchnama and Complaint,<br \/>\nfiled by owner of vehicle.  Therefore according to his submission,<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal has rightly examined issue of negligence and for that<br \/>\nno interference is required.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates while<br \/>\nperusing award in question.  The accident occurred on 23.07.1999,<br \/>\ndeceased Mathurbhai Janabhai Bariya was a driver of Tempo bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.GJ-6U-697 going from Kharivav to Bodeli on correct<br \/>\nside of road with moderate speed and at about 2.15 p.m. in the<br \/>\nafternoon, deceased Mathurbhai Janabhai Bariya was passing from<br \/>\nManjipura village to Raj Marble Factory at that time opponent No.1 ?<br \/>\nS.T. bus driver bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-4088 was came in<br \/>\nfull speed with rash and negligent manner, while overtaking the<br \/>\nmotor-cycle, the driver of S.T.Bus lost his control and dashed in<br \/>\nfront of Tempo and as a result of this, Tempo turned turtle in it and<br \/>\ndeceased Mathurbhai Janabhai Bariya was died while giving treatment<br \/>\nto Mathurbhai.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\ncomplaint regarding accident lodged against opponent No.1 vide I-CR.<br \/>\nNo.47 of 1999 at Bodeli Police Station.  The age of deceased was 30<br \/>\nyears and was earning Rs.3,500\/- per month as a driver. The widow and<br \/>\nminor children are left behind deceased. No other source of income of<br \/>\nfamily, therefore, claim was made of Rs.5,00,000\/- before the Claims<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\nS.T. Corporation has filed reply at Exh.13 and thereafter issues were<br \/>\nframed by Claims Tribunal and then examined the matter. In para ?  8<br \/>\nthe Claims Tribunal has discussed the issue of negligence while<br \/>\nconsidering the complaint and Panchnama at Para ?  8 and 9, which<br \/>\nare reproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p> Para\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 8<\/p>\n<p>\t?SIn<br \/>\nthe present case, considering the argument advanced by both the<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the respective parties in order to prove the<br \/>\nfacts of accident, the appellants have produced F.I.R., Panchnama on<br \/>\nperusal of respective FIR.  It is clear mentioned herein that the<br \/>\ndriver of the S.T.Corporation dashed with the Tempo resulted the<br \/>\ndriver of the Tempo was died on the spot. The other side has not<br \/>\ndenied the said accident. In Para ?  4 of the written statement<br \/>\nfiled by the opponent No.2 that the true fact is that before the<br \/>\naccident, there was a sound from the tyre of the Bus and immediately<br \/>\nthe said Bus stopped on extreme side of the road and at that time,<br \/>\nthe deceased came with his Matador and dash the S.T.Bus on the front<br \/>\nof the driver side. The said vehicle was driven rashly and<br \/>\nnegligently by the deceased, who caused the said accident, therefore,<br \/>\nthere was a contributory negligence on the pat of deceased and is<br \/>\nfound liable to cause the said accident. During the argument, learned<br \/>\nadvocate for opponent No.2 has relied upon the authority 2000 ACJ<br \/>\n?  557 S.C. in the case of Gurmit Kaur and another v. State of<br \/>\nHaryana and others. Further, the driver of the ST Bus is examined<br \/>\nat Exh.26, he has deposed that at the day of accident, he was driving<br \/>\na Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-4088 the said bus was Navsari<br \/>\nto Modasa while he was reaching Bodeli and thereafter going to<br \/>\nKakroli, one Motorcycle was going ahead and at that time one Matador<br \/>\ncame with full speed and dashed with the Bus, at the time his bus was<br \/>\nslowly driven by him. In the cross-examination of applicant&#8217;s<br \/>\nadvocate, he has stated that Matador came in his side.  He has denied<br \/>\nthat he was negligently driving the bus, he has also denied that he<br \/>\nwas trying to overtake Motorcycle and therefore, ST Bus dashed with<br \/>\nthe Tempo.  Considering the said aspects of the case, it is an<br \/>\nadmitted facts that two vehicles were collided with each other. The<br \/>\napplicants specifically came with the case and the ST Bus driver<br \/>\nwhile overtaking Motorcycle and at that time the deceased came with<br \/>\nhis Tempo and therefore, the ST Bus dashed with the Tempo. The said<br \/>\nfact is supported by the FIR, FIR is given by the conductor of<br \/>\nMatador who was also injured in the said accident. No other evidence<br \/>\nis produced by the opponent to rebutting the said aspect at this<br \/>\njuncture and therefore, I have no other way to decide the said issue<br \/>\nthat the opponent No.1 was negligent and therefore the accident was<br \/>\noccurred.??\n<\/p>\n<p> Para\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 9            \t<\/p>\n<p>\t?SNow,<br \/>\nit is the say of the applicants that due to alleged accident,<br \/>\ndeceased Mathurbhai sustained serious succumbed injuries and hence,<br \/>\nhe died at the time of treatment. In support of this, applicants have<br \/>\nproduced P.M.Note at Exh.21, it appears that cause of death of<br \/>\ndeceased Mathurbhai was due to injuries as shown in P.M.Note.<br \/>\nTherefore, applicants have proved that the accident had happened as<br \/>\nalleged by them and due to said accident, deceased sustained serious<br \/>\nsuccumbed injuries and died. Hence my finding to issue No.1 is<br \/>\naffirmative accordingly.??\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tLooking<br \/>\nto discussion, the Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence of<br \/>\ndriver as well as Panchnama and complaint. The Claims Tribunal has<br \/>\ncome to conclusion that S.T.Bus was going from Navsari to Modasa<br \/>\nwhile he was reaching Bodeli village and thereafter going to<br \/>\nKankroli, one Motorcycle was going ahead and at that time, one<br \/>\nMatador came from opposite side at that occasion, S.T. Bus dashed<br \/>\nwith Tempo, this fact has been supported by FIR given by owner of<br \/>\nTempo, after receiving information from cleaner of Tempo, who was<br \/>\ninjured in the said accident. Except the driver of S.T.Bus, no other<br \/>\nperson was examined before Claims Tribunal by appellants. The FIR was<br \/>\nfiled by owner of Tempo, but after receiving information from who was<br \/>\nan eye witness ?  cleaner injured and then he lodged the FIR before<br \/>\nBodeli Police Station. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly<br \/>\nconsidered panchnama and FIR thereafter come to conclusion that it is<br \/>\nnot case of contributory negligence of Tempo driver, proved before<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal. On the contrary, looking to FIR and Panchnama, the<br \/>\naccident has been occurred due to rash and negligence driving of<br \/>\nS.T.Bus driver. It is also necessary to consider as mentioned in<br \/>\nPanchnama that after the accident, about 30 ft. brake-marks of<br \/>\nS.T.Bus it itself suggests the rashness and negligent driving of<br \/>\nS.T.Bus driver otherwise there was no question or reasons of sudden<br \/>\nbrake-mark up to 30 ft. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly<br \/>\nconsidered the Panchnama. Therefore, according to my opinion, finding<br \/>\ngiven by Claims Tribunal on the issue  of negligence, is correct and<br \/>\nit can not be considered to be contrary to record and evidence of<br \/>\ndriver Exh.26 is not reliable because he was not narrated the correct<br \/>\nfacts and it was a contrary to the Panchnama and FIR. According to<br \/>\nS.T.Bus driver Madhavlal came in his side means opposite side and<br \/>\nthat was not the fact because Matador was turned turtle on left side<br \/>\nof bus not of right side. Therefore, impact from S.T.Bus to Matador,<br \/>\nwhich resulted into turned turtle on left side of Matador. The<br \/>\nMotorcycle was lying inside at conductor&#8217;s side ?  gate of S.T.Bus,<br \/>\nwhich apparently proved that S.T.Bus wants to overtake motorcycle and<br \/>\nwhile overtaking motorcycle, S.T.bus was going little bit on right<br \/>\nside and at that moment from opposite side, the Matador was came and<br \/>\nbus was dashed with Matador and due to heavy impact, the Matador was<br \/>\nturned turtle. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has not committed any error<br \/>\nin coming to such a conclusion while deciding issue No.1.  Therefore,<br \/>\ncontention raised by Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt can not be accepted and<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt has not raised any other question about<br \/>\nquantum awarded by Claims Tribunal, therefore, that question is not<br \/>\nconsidered and examined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid observation made by this Court while considering<br \/>\nreasoning given by Claims Tribunal, according to my opinion, Claims<br \/>\nTribunal has rightly examined matter and therefore, no interference<br \/>\nis required as there is no substance in present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tToday<br \/>\nFirst Appeal is dismissed by this Court.  Hence, no order is required<br \/>\nto be passed on Civil Application and is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\namount deposited by Corporation, if any, the registry of this Court<br \/>\nis directed to transmit the same immediately to the concerned Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.RATHOD,J.]<\/p>\n<p>bddave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/4867\/2008 9\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4867 of 2008 ========================================================= G S R T C &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus LILABEN MATHURBHAI BARIYA &amp; 3 &#8211; Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&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-229380","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>G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 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\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-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=\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-10T05:39:25+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T05:39:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1742,\"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\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\",\"name\":\"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T05:39:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 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":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 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\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-10T05:39:25+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T05:39:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008"},"wordCount":1742,"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\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008","name":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T05:39:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-lilaben-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G vs Lilaben on 8 October, 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\/229380","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=229380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}