{"id":239480,"date":"2010-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-09T02:12:47","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T20:42:47","slug":"the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/2349\/2009\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 2349 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13086 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 12888 of 2009\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2349 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\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\nTHE\nVALSAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THRO' MANAGER - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVALSAD\nDISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nBM MANGUKIYA for\nthe Appellant \nMR MUKUL SINHA for the \nRespondent \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 BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:  4th\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal is filed by the Manager of the bank &#8211; appellant<br \/>\nbeing aggrieved by the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court<br \/>\ndelivered on 1.4.2009 whereby the challenge to the award dated<br \/>\n20.9.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, in Reference (IT)<br \/>\nNo. 21 of 2007 was not sustained by learned Single Judge and the<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application was dismissed. The award was challenged by<br \/>\nthe appellant before learned Single Judge on two contentions which<br \/>\nhave been noted down by learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 5 and<br \/>\n5.1 of the judgement which are reproduced hereinafter:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;para<br \/>\n5 &#8211; As mentioned above the award is challenged on two grounds.<br \/>\nOne of the contentions is to the effect that in respect of the<br \/>\npetitioner bank which is a &#8220;banking  company&#8221; as defined<br \/>\nunder Section 2(bb) of the Industiral Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8220;I.D. Act&#8221;), the appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment would be the Central Government and not the State<br \/>\nGovernment and that therefore the  reference could not have been made<br \/>\nby an authority under the State Government but ought to have been<br \/>\nmade by the authority under Central Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para<br \/>\n5.1 &#8211;  The second contentions is on the ground that even if it is<br \/>\nassumed that the appropriate Government is State Government and order<br \/>\nof reference was validly made then also the labour Court would not<br \/>\nhave jurisdiction to decide the dispute inasmuch as the subject of<br \/>\ntransfer is not one of the matters covered under Schedule 2 of the<br \/>\nI.D. Act but is a subject covered under Schedule 5 of the I.D. Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tPrior<br \/>\nto this litigation there were other litigations in which both the<br \/>\nparties have agreed on the matters being disposed of with certain<br \/>\ndirections and learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of<br \/>\nthose proceedings with the following directions:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(i).\tThe<br \/>\nnewly added respondent-Commissioner of \tLabour shall make reference<br \/>\nto the concerned \tIndustrial Tribunal on receipt of the request for<br \/>\njoint \treference as agreed by the parties hereinabove \tunder Section<br \/>\n10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, \t1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii).\tThe<br \/>\nappropriate authority i.e.  the Commissioner of \tLabour shall make<br \/>\nreference to the concerned \tTribunal for adjudication within a period<br \/>\nof ten days \tfrom the date of the receipt of the request of \tmaking<br \/>\njoint reference by the respective parties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tDealing<br \/>\nwith the contentions raised by the petitioner, learned Single Judge<br \/>\nin the present lis has rejected the first contention by observing in<br \/>\nparagraph No. 10 which is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Thus,<br \/>\nwhen the orders against which the concerned 7 persons raised the<br \/>\nchallenge are orders made under Standing Orders of the petitioner<br \/>\nbank, then the said orders would stand covered under entry No. 1 of<br \/>\n2nd Schedule or in any case, as mentioned earlier, under<br \/>\nthe residuary entry i.e.  entry No. 6 of second schedule.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nSingle Judge has rejected the second contention of the appellant<br \/>\nwhile giving his findings at paragraph No. 25 which is reproduced<br \/>\nhereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Be<br \/>\nthat as it may, so far as the present petition is concerned and the<br \/>\ncontention raised by the petitioner bank is concerned, the same<br \/>\nstands settled by the judgement of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in  case<br \/>\nof  Bharat Co-operative Bank (supra) and by the order passed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench in the reference made in the case of Madhupura<br \/>\nMercantile Co-operative Bank Limited (supra) relying on said judgment<br \/>\nof the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court. Hence the said contention also fails.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant submitted that the contentions which were<br \/>\nlimited before learned Single Judge on two counts were without<br \/>\nauthority of the litigant and therefore learned Single Judge ought<br \/>\nnot to have limited the judgement only on these two counts. We are<br \/>\nnot impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant on<br \/>\nthis ground because all these questions if at all were required to be<br \/>\nadjudicated they were required to be agitated before learned Single<br \/>\nJudge and not before this Court.  We are informed that a review<br \/>\npetition was filed and the same has been rejected. In this background<br \/>\nthis argument is not available to learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nthat the judgement of learned Single Judge could not have been<br \/>\nlimited to two grounds only. Learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nfurthering his arguments on ground No. 1 that the Reference being<br \/>\nmade by the State Government which was not an appropriate Government,<br \/>\nhence reference was not maintainable. We are afraid that this<br \/>\nargument is not available to the petitioner firstly on the ground<br \/>\nthat it was on his own volition that he took a direction by learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge of this Court in earlier proceedings and while the<br \/>\ndirection was sought for by the appellant, thoughtful consideration<br \/>\nmust have been given as to which is the appropriate Government. In<br \/>\nany case the reasoning given by learned Single Judge in his judgement<br \/>\nbased on the finding of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the matter of<br \/>\nBHARAT COOP. BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. VS. CO.OP BANK EMPLOYEES UNION<br \/>\nreported at 2007(4) SCC 685 that the State Government is the<br \/>\nappropriate Government, does not appear to us in any way vitiated by<br \/>\nany of the niceties which learned counsel for the appellant has tried<br \/>\nto invoke because appropriate bank in a Banking Company which the<br \/>\nappellant is in terms of the definition of Section 5 of the Banking<br \/>\nRegulations Act. We have no doubt in holding that the ratio in the<br \/>\nmatter of BHARAT COOP. BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. (supra) has been rightly<br \/>\napplied by learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThe<br \/>\nsecond contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellant is<br \/>\nthat the transfer is not subject matter of dispute as covered by<br \/>\nSchedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act but is a<br \/>\nsubject covered by Schedule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act and<br \/>\ntherefore is not liable to be referred. Learned Single Judge has<br \/>\ndealt with this aspect in detail. The argument of  learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant that this cannot be made the subject matter of<br \/>\nindustrial dispute does not appear to us to be based on sound<br \/>\nreasoning because the transfer orders were made under Standing Orders<br \/>\nand as per Second Schedule   Clause (1) and Residuary Clause (6) as<br \/>\nhas been observed by learned Single Judge, the Reference was validly<br \/>\nmade. In any case the appellant has agreed before this Court in<br \/>\nearlier litigation that the Reference can be made on the subject. A<br \/>\nreference in this regard may be made to the case decided by the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the matters of NATIONAL RADIO CORPORATION<br \/>\nVS. THEIR WORKMEN reported in 1963(6) FLR 8 = 1963(1) LLJ 282 and<br \/>\nG.E. POWER CONTROLS INDIA AND OTEHRS VS. S. LAKSHMIPATHY AND OTHERS<br \/>\nreported (2005) 11 SCC 509 wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<br \/>\ndealt with the question of transfer where the matter was being<br \/>\nreferred to the Industrial Tribunal and in none of these cases it has<br \/>\nbeen held that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to<br \/>\nentertain the matters of transfer. In that view of the matter when<br \/>\nthe matter of transfer has been adjudicated by the Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal and the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has not said that the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas no jurisdiction in the matters of transfer, it cannot be<br \/>\nconcluded that in the matters where transfer orders are made under<br \/>\nStanding Orders, the same cannot be made subject matter of the<br \/>\nindustrial dispute.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid, on both the counts the reasoning given by<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge is upheld. The arguments of learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant are not accepted and hence rejected. There is no force<br \/>\nin the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of disposal of the main matter, the Civil Application does not<br \/>\nsurvive. It stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (BHAGWATI RPASAD, J)<\/p>\n<p>     (BANKIM N. MEHTA, J)<\/p>\n<p>(pkn)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/2349\/2009 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2349 of 2009 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13086 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12888 of 2009 [&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-239480","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T20:42:47+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T20:42:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1314,\"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\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\",\"name\":\"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T20:42:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - 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\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T20:42:47+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T20:42:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010"},"wordCount":1314,"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\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010","name":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T20:42:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-valsad-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs Valsad on 29 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239480","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=239480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239480\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}