{"id":234375,"date":"2011-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-06T05:27:41","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T23:57:41","slug":"g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSA\/4\/1993\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 4 of 1993\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nG\nS R T C - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKISHOR\nB SHAH - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nPRANAV G DESAI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR HASIT H JOSHI for Defendant(s) :\n1, \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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/01\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tPresent
\nSecond Appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport
\nCorporation – appellant – original defendant posing the
\nsubstantial questions of law as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhether
\nthe Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute between the
\nemployer and employee when the employee is a workman within the
\nmeaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Court is wrong in setting aside the finding given under
\nOrder 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court?\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Court has power to sit over the finding given by the
\ndepartmental authority under the provisions of Code of Civil
\nProcedure?\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Court has power to set aside the judgment and decree
\npassed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case
\nunder Order 41 of the C.P.C.?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nshort facts of the case briefly summarized are that the original
\nplaintiff – respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 147
\nof 1984 challenging the order of dismissal on various counts. The
\nrespondent original plaintiff was serving as a conductor at Gondal
\nS.T. Depot. He was involved in a default case in 1980 for not issuing
\ntickets in spite of having collected the amount of the ticket and was
\nchargesheeted. After the inquiry, the Divisional Controller passed an
\norder reducing the plaintiff to minimum stage of scale.  The said
\norder was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the respondent –
\noriginal plaintiff was once again involved in another default case
\nand show-cause notice was given and after inquiry he was dismissed
\nfrom the service. The respondent plaintiff had challenged even the
\nshow-cause notice also by filing a suit and injunction application.
\nThereafter, it was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh suit
\nafter the order of punishment at the conclusion of the inquiry is
\npassed.  Therefore, the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984
\nwas filed on the ground that the S.T. Corporation is a State under
\nArticle 12 of the Constitution of India and he is entitled to
\nprotection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was
\nalso contended that the entire issue has been prejudged and the order
\nof punishment is in violation of the rules of natural justice. He had
\nalso challenged the inquiry and stated that the inquiry is without
\njurisdiction. On the basis of the material and evidence the suit was
\ndismissed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal vide judgment and order
\ndated 31.12.1987.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAgainst
\nthe said judgment and order, Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1988 came
\nto be preferred before the Assistant Judge, Gondal, District Rajkot
\nby the respondent – original plaintiff on the grounds set out
\nin the memo of appeal. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal
\nfiled by the respondent – original plaintiff setting aside the
\nimpugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.147 of
\n1984 and also declared that the order bearing No.1586
\ndated 15.9.1982 is illegal and in violation of the principle
\nof natural justice and null and void. It also restrained the
\nappellant – original defendant from implementing the said order
\nof dismissal vide judgment and order dated 06.01.1992.
\n Therefore, the present
\nsecond appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Corporation
\nsetting out the substantial questions of law as stated herein above.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. P.G.Desai submitted that as it was a case pertaining to
\nthe disciplinary matter, even though the Corporation is State within
\nthe meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, still, it would be an
\nindustrial dispute and the jurisdiction of the civil Court would be
\nbarred. He further submitted that the respondent – original
\nplaintiff has filed one after another suit. He had challenged the
\nshow-cause notice and thereafter he has filed the present suit
\nchallenging the order of dismissal. He also submitted that on earlier
\noccasion lenient view was taken while imposing the punishment. But,
\nsince it was second default after holding the regular inquiry, the
\norder of dismissal came to be passed which was challenged by way of
\nRegular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984 which was dismissed. Learned
\nCounsel Mr. P.G.Desai, however, submitted that the lower Appellate
\nCourt has proceeded on the wrong footing that there was violation of
\nrules of natural justice and the main emphasis which has been given
\nby the lower Appellate Court is that in the notice served by the
\ninquiry officer and the punishing authority, there was no mention of
\nthe previous record of the respondent – plaintiff  which has
\nbeen taken into consideration and therefore the respondent –
\noriginal plaintiff has been denied the right of making his
\nrepresentation at the time of inflicting the punishment and therefore
\nthe order of dismissal is in violation of the rules of natural
\njustice and therefore null and void. Learned counsel Mr. Desai also
\nsubmitted that the lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the
\nfacts while referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported
\nin AIR 1964 S.C. P. 506. He pointedly referred to the fact that in
\nthat case the facts were totally different, whereas, in the facts of
\nthe present case, the fare
\nwas collected which was misappropriated. There the case pertained to
\nnon-issuance of ticket whereas here in this case after collecting the
\namount of tickets, the same has been misappropriated. Learned counsel
\nMr. Desai also submitted that even after filing of the suit the order
\nhas been implemented and the respondent – plaintiff has
\naccepted the pension and gratuity without any protest and therefore
\nhe is estopped from challenging the impugned order of dismissal. He,
\ntherefore, submitted that the present second appeal may be allowed.
\nLearned counsel Mr. Desai also submitted that the reliance placed by
\nthe lower Appellate Court for the purpose of considering the aspect
\nof jurisdiction is also misconceived in light of the judgments of the
\nHon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel Mr. Desai submitted that the
\nobservations made by the lower Appellate Court that the respondent –
\noriginal plaintiff would be entitled to the protection under Article
\n311 is also misconceived. He, therefore, submitted that if the
\npresent second appeal is not allowed, it would amount to confirming
\nthe order of the lower Appellate Court whereby the order of dismissal
\nis set aside and it would lead to a situation where the
\nrespondent-plaintiff may claim the benefits as if the order of
\ndismissal is not passed and it would be a premium for such
\nirregularities committed by the respondent – plaintiff
\nrepeatedly. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of
\nthe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v.
\nDeen Dayal Sharma reported in 2010
\nAIR SCW 3108.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. Joshi appearing for the respondent – original
\nplaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gujarat
\nState Road Transport Corporation v. Ravji Tapubhai Goti<\/a>
\nreported in 1998(2) GLR P. 1418 and submitted that
\nit has been discussed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil
\nCourt and it has also been held that the jurisdiction of the civil
\nCourt is not barred as the order inflicting penalty has been
\nchallenged not only on the ground of standing order but based on
\nviolation of common law or the disciplinary appeal rules. He,
\ntherefore, submitted that the judgment in the case of Rajasthan
\nState Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Zakir Hussain
\nreported in AIR 1995
\nSupreme Court 1715 has also been considered. He
\nfurther submitted referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nin the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and
\nAnr. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in 2009
\n(2) GLH 348 that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
\nis not barred and the conclusion arrived at by the courts below with
\nregard to the jurisdiction as well as order 2 rule 2 of C.P.C. are
\njust and proper. He submitted that if the respondent – original
\nplaintiff had a right to file a suit for challenging the show-cause
\nnotice or the order inflicting the punishment in the departmental
\ninquiry on the ground of violation of natural justice and when the
\nfindings have been given by the Court below on appreciation of facts,
\nthis Court may not examine, in exercise of discretion under Section
\n100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the second appeal, as there is
\nno substantial question of law which can be said to have been
\ninvolved. He emphasized and submitted that another aspect is with
\nregard to the inquiry conducted in violation of rules of natural
\njustice or the order of inflicting punishment which is harsh as has
\nbeen considered by the lower Appellate Court and this Court may not
\nconsider in exercise of discretion under Section 100 of Code of Civil
\nProcedure in the second appeal. He, therefore, submitted that once
\nthe jurisdiction of the civil Court is held to be valid and the order
\nis passed on appreciation of evidence, the present second appeal may
\nnot be entertained. He submitted that the earlier suit filed
\nchallenging the show-cause notice was withdrawn with the permission
\nto file fresh suit and therefore Order 2 Rule 2 does not have any
\napplication as observed. He, therefore, submitted that the second
\nappeal may not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nview of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether
\nthe present second appeal can be entertained or not.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIt
\nis well accepted that while exercising the discretion under Section
\n100 of C.P.C in second appeal, the scope is very limited and the High
\nCourt can interfere only when there are substantial questions of law
\ninvolved. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines with
\nregard to exercise of discretion as observed in a judgment in the
\ncase of Gurdev Kaur and Ors. v. Kaki & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
reported in (2007) 1 SCC P. 546 wherein it has been
\nspecifically observed that the High Courts would have jurisdiction of
\ninterfering under Section 100 CPC only in a case where substantial
\nquestions of law are involved and those questions have been clearly
\nformulated in the memorandum of appeal. At the time of admission of
\nthe second appeal, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the High
\nCourt to formulate substantial questions of law and then only the
\nHigh Court is permitted to proceed with the case to decide those
\nquestions of law. The language used in the amended section
\nspecifically incorporates the words ‘substantial question of law’
\nwhich is indicative of the legislative intention. The legislative
\nintention is very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal
\nto become ‘third trial on facts’ or ‘one more dice in the gamble’. It
\nhas been further reiterated and discussed as to the scope after the
\namendment in the Code of Civil Procedure. The same view has also been
\nexpressed in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment
\nin the case of State Bank of India  & Ors. v. S.N.Goyal
\nreported in (2008) 8 SCC P.   92 and also in the case
\nof Narayanan Rajendran & Anr. v. Lakshmy Sarojini &
\nOrs. reported in (2009) 5 SCC P. 264. However,
\neven in the judgment reported in the case of Gurdev
\nKaur (supra)
\nin
\npara 70 it has been clearly observed as to when the High Court can
\nexercise the discretion under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure in
\nsecond appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.
\nThe Hon’ble Apex Court has, at the same time, in its judgment in Ram
\nSwaroop v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2008 SC
\n1747, observed in
\npara 17 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“17.\tThe
\ngeneral rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent
\nfindings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of
\nthe well recognized exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have
\nignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts
\nhave drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law
\nerroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of
\nproof. When we refer to ‘decision based on no evidence’, it not only
\nrefers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also
\nrefers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not
\nreasonably capable of supporting the finding.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nis required to be mentioned that initially the suit filed by the
\nrespondent – original plaintiff was dismissed. It is also
\ncontended with regard to protection under Article 311 of the
\nConstitution of India. However, it will have no application as the
\nrespondent – original plaintiff cannot be a servant or the
\nemployee of the State, but he is an employee of the Corporation and
\nprotection under Article 311 would not be applicable to the employees
\nof a statutory Corporation. This aspect has not been focused properly
\nand the lower Appellate Court has misdirected while considering the
\nfact that the appellant Corporation is a “State” within
\nthe meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tFurther,
\nwhat has been observed in para 15 by the lower Appellate Court is
\nthat in the notice issued by the authority, there is no mention of
\nprevious record of respondent – original plaintiff and
\ntherefore the order of dismissal is in violation of the principles of
\nnatural justice. There is no dispute that it was a second default and
\nit is also not in dispute that earlier a lenient view was taken and
\nlessor punishment was imposed. Therefore, on the second default,
\nafter the inquiry was held and after providing an opportunity the
\norder of dismissal came to be passed which cannot be set aside
\nmerely on  a ground that this aspect has not been mentioned in the
\nnotice which has been considered while inflicting the punishment. It
\ngoes without saying that these aspects are required to be considered.
\nThe respondent plaintiff had challenged the show-cause notice by way
\nof a suit, which came to be withdrawn, and after the order of
\ninflicting the punishment\/dismissal, the suit came to be filed.
\nEarlier, Civil Suit No. 193 of 1980 for challenging the inquiry and
\npunishment was also filed raising the same contentions with regard to
\nviolation of natural justice and the inquiry was not properly
\nconducted or that the plaintiff was not given reasonable opportunity.
\nIt was withdrawn on 29.06.1984 with a permission to file fresh suit
\nand thereafter Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984 has been filed.
\nThus, one suit after another has been filed and Civil Suit No. 193 of
\n1980 has been filed challenging the entire inquiry on various grounds
\nand therefore the present suit would not have been maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tSimilarly,
\nthe respondent – plaintiff had filed Special Civil Application
\nNo. 4479 of 1982 before the High Court which has been rejected. He
\nhad also preferred an application before the Industrial Tribunal
\nunder Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIt
\nis in this background, though, normally, this Court would not
\ninterfere  with the order of the lower Appellate Court in exercise of
\ndiscretion under Section 100 of CPC in the second appeal, however,
\nthe fact remains that there is no concurrent finding and the suit
\nfiled by the plaintiff was dismissed and the lower Appellate Court
\nhas misdirected and allowed the appeal in spite of the aforesaid
\nchequered history. In view of the fact that earlier suit No. 193 of
\n1980 was withdrawn, the present suit No. 147 of 1984 would not have
\nbeen maintainable. Further, even Special Civil Application No. 4479
\nof 1982 had been rejected.  The respondent – original plaintiff
\ncannot say that the rule of natural justice is violated and the
\ninquiry has been conducted in violation of the rules of natural
\njustice and no opportunity was given to him. The respondent –
\noriginal plaintiff is, therefore, estopped from raising such a plea.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFurther,
\nthe plaintiff himself has accepted his contribution of the provident
\nfund and gratuity amount without any protest or reserving any right
\nwhich also reflects his attitude.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nthese circumstances, the moot question which is required to be
\nconsidered is that even if it is accepted that the jurisdiction of
\nthe civil Court is not barred and the suit is maintainable, still,
\nwhether in the facts and circumstances and on the basis of evidence
\nit would call for any interference. Admittedly, there is no dispute
\nabout the fact that inquiry has been conducted and the charges have
\nbeen established as observed by both the Courts below. Therefore,
\nonce an inquiry has been conducted and the charges have been
\nestablished, whether the lower Appellate Court could have interfered
\nand substituted its finding on the aspect of quantum of punishment
\nmerely on the ground that the notice issued did not mention about the
\nprevious history of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tAs
\ndiscussed herein above, even the lower Appellate Court has accepted
\nabout the inquiry having been conducted and the charges having been
\nestablished, the order has been passed on the ground that the notice
\nissued for the purpose of quantum of punishment has not referred to
\nthe history which is said to have been taken into consideration and
\ntherefore it has been stated that opportunity has been denied or the
\nrules of natural justice have been violated. One
\nfails to understand how the rules of natural justice can be
\nsaid to have been violated when the notice has already been issued
\nadmittedly for the quantum of punishment. Therefore, admittedly when
\nthe notice has been issued and opportunity has been given to the
\nrespondent – plaintiff on the aspect of quantum of punishment,
\nthe lower Appellate Court has misdirected in interfering with the
\norder with regard to the punishment on the ground of violation of
\nprinciples of natural justice. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court
\nhaving based the findings only on such trivial matter with regard to
\nthe notice and not mentioning about the earlier history of the
\noriginal plaintiff and ignoring the entire evidence and had thereby
\nmisdirected while setting aside the impugned judgment and order of
\nthe trial Court and also the order of dismissal. It has also been
\nnoticed and considered by the trial Court about the past conduct and
\nthe earlier incident and after taking into consideration the repeated
\noccurrence the order of dismissal has been held to be justified
\nconsidering the aspect of quantum of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThere
\nis no doubt that while considering such aspect, the doctrine of
\nproportionality has to be considered. It is also well accepted that
\nwhile considering such aspect, the doctrine of proportionality has to
\nbe considered which would depend upon the gravity of the charges,
\nrepetition, etc.  In the facts of the case, as there is repetition of
\nsuch misconduct, the impugned order has been passed which cannot be
\nsaid to be erroneous, particularly when, admittedly the inquiry is
\nheld and the charges are established after affording an opportunity.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIn
\nthese circumstances, it is required to be considered whether the
\nlower Appellate Court could have reversed the findings while
\nconfirming the fact that charges are established and only on the
\naspect of quantum of punishment it has substituted its findings. The
\nHon’ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has observed
\nthat normally the Court would not substitute its own findings while
\ndeciding the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be too
\nharsh. In the facts of the present case, while considering this
\naspect, a useful reference can be made to the observations made by
\nthe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P.State
\nRoad Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar
\nreported in (2008)
\n1 Supreme Court Cases 115,
\nwherein it has been observed in a similar case of conductor of a
\nState Transport Corporation with regard to misappropriation of money
\nby carrying the passengers without tickets. In the said judgment, it
\nhas been observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“This
\nCourt in a number of judgments
\nhas held that the punishment of removal\/dismissal is the appropriate
\npunishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds;
\nand the Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on
\nmisplaced sympathy for a workman.\n<\/p>\n
 That, there is nothing wrong in the employer losing confidence or
\nfaith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. That,
\nin such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy
\non the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum
\nof punishment.”\n<\/p>\n
18.\tTherefore,
\nafter taking into consideration various aspects like, gravity of the
\ncharges, findings in the inquiry, etc. when the punishment is
\ninflicted, the same cannot be easily interfered with. Therefore, as
\nrightly submitted, the lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate
\nall these material and evidence while observing that the order of
\ndismissal is in violation of the principles of natural justice and
\ntherefore to that extent it has misdirected as the observations would
\nbe self contradictory inasmuch as, on one hand, the inquiry is
\nadmittedly held and the notice at the conclusion of the inquiry for
\nquantum of punishment is also issued. But, while imposing the
\npunishment, merely because the notice has not mentioned about the
\nearlier history which is considered, is held to be bad and is made a
\nground for setting aside the order of the trial Court. As observed,
\nthe lower Appellate Court has, misdirected as it cannot be said to be
\nin violation of natural justice when the Hon’ble Apex Court has
\ndiscussed as above observing that the Court normally would not
\nsubstitute its own findings with regard to quantum of punishment. The
\nlower Appellate Court ought not to have disturbed the findings.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tTherefore,
\nthe present second appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly
\nstands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.1992
\npassed by the  Assistant Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14
\nof 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tRule
\nis made absolute. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(RAJESH
\nH. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n
jani<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/4\/1993 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 4 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/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-234375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-05T23:57:41+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=\"19 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-kishor-on-9-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T23:57:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3594,\"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-kishor-on-9-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\",\"name\":\"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T23:57:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-05T23:57:41+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T23:57:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011"},"wordCount":3594,"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-kishor-on-9-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011","name":"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T23:57:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-kishor-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G vs Kishor on 9 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/234375","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=234375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}