{"id":240594,"date":"2010-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-29T06:46:55","modified_gmt":"2015-08-29T01:16:55","slug":"jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1318\/2010\t 8\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1318 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nJORUBHA\nTAPUBHAI DHANDHAL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIVISIONAL\nCONTROLLER - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJS BRAHMBHATT for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\nCourt has issued notice on 11th February 2010 for final<br \/>\ndisposal in this matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner   conductor challenged the award passed by Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.371 of 2002 Ex.33 dated 11th<br \/>\nDecember 2006, wherein, Reference has been rejected by Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis necessary to note that award passed by Industrial Tribunal on 11th<br \/>\nDecember 2006 challenged in present petition which has been filed on<br \/>\n5th February 2010. The reason for delay is explained in<br \/>\nPara 13 by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording<br \/>\nto petitioner, he is in service of respondent Corporation as<br \/>\nConductor since many years. On 4th October 1995, when he<br \/>\nwas working at Deesa Depot of Palanpur Division and he was going to<br \/>\nresume his duty in bus route from Ahmedabad to Palanpur and after<br \/>\nleaving Ahmedabad city, near Ambikanagar on Highway, health of<br \/>\nconductor who was on duty Mr. P.B. Makwana in the said bus became in<br \/>\ndeteriorate condition and he was required urgent medical treatment,<br \/>\ntherefore, on being request made by him, present petitioner had<br \/>\nworked as conductor on his behalf in the same route on humanitarian<br \/>\nground and conductor went to take medical treatment. The fact is that<br \/>\nthe present petitioner has taken over the charge as a conductor<br \/>\nbecause original conductor, who was on route, had fallen sick. The<br \/>\nsaid bus was checked at Deesa Depot by checking inspector and during<br \/>\nchecking, they could not found any irregularities, but, report was<br \/>\nmade that without getting prior permission from Authority, the<br \/>\npetitioner had worked as a conductor in the bus in place of original<br \/>\nconductor Shri Makwana. On the basis of that report, charge-sheet<br \/>\nNo.215 of 1995 was issued against petitioner by respondent<br \/>\nCorporation on 19th October 1995. On 6th<br \/>\nDecember 1995, reply was submitted by petitioner and thereafter,<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner. After<br \/>\ncompletion of departmental inquiry, according to petitioner, without<br \/>\nsupplying findings, punishment order to withhold one year increment<br \/>\nwith permanent effect is passed by competent authority on 3rd<br \/>\nJanuary 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThereafter,<br \/>\nFirst Appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected by appellate<br \/>\nauthority on 31st January 1997. Even Second Appeal was<br \/>\nalso dismissed on 11st October 1998. Thereafter,<br \/>\nindustrial dispute was raised against said punishment which was<br \/>\nreferred for adjudication on 30th October 2002 and<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal has rejected the said Reference on 11th<br \/>\nDecember 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Brahmbhatt has raised number of contentions before this<br \/>\nCourt. He emphasised that according to charge-sheet issued by<br \/>\nCorporation, petitioner has not committed breach of administrative<br \/>\ncircular and not committed misconduct under Rule 22. He made<br \/>\nsubmissions mainly based on technical aspect ignoring substance of<br \/>\nmatter. He submitted that competent authority has not appreciated the<br \/>\nhelp which has been extended by petitioner in favour of conductor who<br \/>\nwas fallen all of sudden sick and he was travelling in the same bus<br \/>\ntook over the charge of conductor without prior permission, but,<br \/>\nthere was no bad intention on the part of petitioner. He challenged<br \/>\nlegality and validity of departmental inquiry in present petition<br \/>\nraising contentions in Para 9 and 10. He submitted that Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal has committed gross error in not exercising the powers under<br \/>\nSec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submitted that<br \/>\nburden lies upon Management to establish the alleged charge by<br \/>\nleading proper evidence in departmental inquiry. But, before inquiry<br \/>\nofficer, no one was examined for proving charge against workman. He<br \/>\nsubmitted that statement of driver was considered against workman<br \/>\npresent petitioner without examining the driver in inquiry,<br \/>\ntherefore, finding which has been given by competent authority is<br \/>\nvitiated, baseless and perverse. That aspect has not been properly<br \/>\nconsidered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In short his submission<br \/>\nis that Industrial Tribunal has committed gross error in rejecting<br \/>\nReference referred by appropriate Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms. S.K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of Corporation<br \/>\nsubmitted that before Industrial Tribunal, written statement was<br \/>\nfiled by Corporation at Ex.9 and by Ex.31 purshis, legality and<br \/>\nvalidity of departmental inquiry was not challenged by petitioner,<br \/>\nexcept to challenge the finding given by competent authority. She<br \/>\nsubmitted that petitioner has not led any oral evidence before<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal and documents which have been produced by<br \/>\nCorporation have been admitted and accordingly, all the documents are<br \/>\nexhibited because of no objection given by petitioner&#8217;s advocate. She<br \/>\nsubmitted that Industrial Tribunal has given findings in Para 9 on<br \/>\nthe basis of records produced by Corporation. The Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\nhas come to conclusion that on the date on which incident occurred<br \/>\n4th October 1995 when bus was checked by checking staff,<br \/>\nat that occasion, this petitioner was found on duty being an<br \/>\nunauthorised person and for that, no prior permission has been<br \/>\nobtained from any Authority by petitioner. She submitted that to<br \/>\nobtain the tray and traffic cash of other conductor and issued<br \/>\ntickets to passengers by petitioner without prior permission, which<br \/>\nitself  is  serious misconduct to be proved by admission of<br \/>\npetitioner. She submitted that in departmental inquiry, Reporter was<br \/>\nnot examined because a question which was asked to petitioner whether<br \/>\nhe wants to cross-examine the reporter or not ? The answer is given<br \/>\nas &#8216;NO&#8217;, therefore, report has been admitted by petitioner. Against<br \/>\nthe defense raised by petitioner, she submitted that driver<br \/>\nKishorsinh P. Vihol, Badge No.36592 who has given statement at Deesa<br \/>\nto checking staff and according to his statement, Shri P.B. Makwana<br \/>\nwas not found on duty in the bus and in his place, present petitioner<br \/>\nwas performing duty as a conductor, but, driver was not aware about<br \/>\nthe facts whether Shri P.B. Makwana, conductor was fallen sick near<br \/>\nAmbikanagar to Kalol or not. Therefore, a question was asked to<br \/>\nconductor   present petitioner whether statement was given by<br \/>\ndriver is correct or not ? The answer is given as &#8216;YES&#8217;. Therefore,<br \/>\nshe submitted that relying upon such evidence, competent authority<br \/>\nhas rightly decided matter and examined it and rightly come to<br \/>\nconclusion that misconduct is found to be proved on the basis of<br \/>\nmaterial which were placed before competent authority. Therefore, she<br \/>\nsubmitted that whatever contentions raised before this Court in<br \/>\npresent petition after a period of four years, such challenge should<br \/>\nnot have to be entertained by this Court and reason which has been<br \/>\ngiven for delay cannot consider to be a genuine and sufficient cause<br \/>\nand first time, such contentions have been raised by petitioner in<br \/>\npresent petition and similar contentions were not raised by<br \/>\npetitioner before Industrial Tribunal, therefore, she submitted that<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal has not committed any error which requires<br \/>\ninterference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by learned advocates appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of respective parties. I have also perused the award passed by<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The facts remain that on the date of<br \/>\nincident 4th October 1995, when petitioner was travelling<br \/>\nin the bus No.3508 on the route of Ahmedabad to Deesa and in that ST<br \/>\nBus, regular conductor was Shri P.B. Makwana, Badge No.25227 and<br \/>\nbecause of he had fallen sick all of sudden, present petitioner<br \/>\nunauthorisedly, without obtaining any prior permission from<br \/>\nrespective authorities issued tickets to passengers from the tray of<br \/>\nconductor Mr. Makwana and also recover the fare from passengers which<br \/>\nwas deposited by present petitioner in traffic cash at Deesa Depot,<br \/>\nbut, one fact has been admitted by workman   present petitioner<br \/>\nthat it was unauthorised trip completed by present petitioner because<br \/>\nShri P.B. Makwana, conductor had fallen sick on duty. The reason for<br \/>\nunauthorised duty which has been performed by petitioner may be<br \/>\ngenuine, but, for that also, it is subject to comply administrative<br \/>\ncircular which includes prior permission from such authority. No<br \/>\nprior permission was obtained by petitioner from any other authority<br \/>\nincluding Depot Manager of Kalol and without such authority,<br \/>\nunauthorisedly taken over a tray of tickets and completed booking<br \/>\nupto Deesa and at the time when checking was taken place, conductor<br \/>\nShri P.B. Makwana was not found by checking staff, therefore, report<br \/>\nwas submitted against present petitioner and in departmental inquiry,<br \/>\nreporter was to be examined, but, when question was asked to present<br \/>\npetitioner whether he wants to cross-examine the reporter or not ?<br \/>\nThe answer is given by him as &#8216;NO&#8217;, means, present petitioner is not<br \/>\ndisputed the report submitted by checking staff. Therefore, report<br \/>\nsubmitted by reporter is also considered to be an evidence. The<br \/>\nreason is that the petitioner does not want to cross-examine the<br \/>\nreporter in departmental inquiry. The statement of driver Kishorsinh<br \/>\nP. Vihol was also accepted by him. Therefore, question to examine him<br \/>\nin departmental inquiry does not arise. The legality and validity of<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry was admitted by petitioner, therefore, whatever<br \/>\ncontentions raised in present petition by petitioner, were not raised<br \/>\nbefore Industrial Tribunal, therefore, such contentions cannot be<br \/>\naccepted by this Court which have been raised first time before this<br \/>\nCourt. The finding given by inquiry officer is also based on legal<br \/>\nevidence. The inquiry officer has relied upon report submitted by<br \/>\nreporter who was not to be cross-examined by petitioner as per reply<br \/>\ngiven by petitioner to inquiry officer and statement of driver<br \/>\nKishorsinh P. Vihol was admitted by him, means, fact remains that on<br \/>\nthe date of incident, whether driver Shri Makwana had fallen sick or<br \/>\nnot ? That fact has not been proved by way of defence before inquiry<br \/>\nofficer. The petitioner has not proved his defence before inquiry<br \/>\nofficer. The charge levied against him was proved on the basis of<br \/>\nreport and statement of driver Kishorsinh P. Vihol. Apart from that,<br \/>\nthis being an undisputed fact that present petitioner without prior<br \/>\npermission performed the duty as an unauthorised conductor in place<br \/>\nof original conductor Shri Makwana upto Deesa, which itself is a<br \/>\nserious misconduct committed by petitioner which has been rightly<br \/>\nestablished against present petitioner in inquiry. Thereafter,<br \/>\ncompetent authority has rightly imposed punishment considering<br \/>\ndefence of present petitioner, so that, in future, petitioner may<br \/>\nimprove his such conduct. The competent authority has also considered<br \/>\nmedical certificate produced by petitioner of conductor Shri Makwana.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nAccording to my opinion, the punishment of stoppage of one year<br \/>\nincrement with cumulative effect can not consider to be<br \/>\ndisproportionate or unjust punishment, so it is required to be<br \/>\nexercised the powers by Industrial Tribunal under Sec.11A of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, contentions which have been<br \/>\nraised by learned Mr. Brahmbhatt cannot be accepted, hence, rejected.<br \/>\nAccording to my opinion, Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad has not<br \/>\ncommitted any error which requires interference by this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHence,<br \/>\nthere is no substance in present petition, accordingly, present<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1318\/2010 8\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1318 of 2010 ========================================================= JORUBHA TAPUBHAI DHANDHAL &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JS BRAHMBHATT [&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-240594","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>Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 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\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-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=\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-29T01:16:55+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\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T01:16:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1774,\"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\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T01:16:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 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":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 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\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-29T01:16:55+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\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T01:16:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010"},"wordCount":1774,"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\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010","name":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T01:16:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jorubha-vs-divisional-on-10-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jorubha vs Divisional on 10 May, 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\/240594","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=240594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}