{"id":240776,"date":"2008-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-08T23:06:51","modified_gmt":"2018-01-08T17:36:51","slug":"alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.M.Thaker<\/div>\n<pre>  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n \n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13075\/2007\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \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. 13075 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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\nALANKAR\nCINEMA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUMESHBHAI\nRAMANLAL DESAI &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSP MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nBHARAT SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nUNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/08\/2008  \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p> Mr. Bharat Shah, learned advocate for the respondent waives service<br \/>\nof Rule.  With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the<br \/>\nparties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner has approached this Court against an award dated 8.6.2006<br \/>\npassed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference No. 150 of 1989 about<br \/>\nRespondent&#8217;s dispute against his termination.   By the impugned<br \/>\naward, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner herein to<br \/>\nreinstate the respondent and pay him 25% of backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\nrelevant facts, as it transpires from the record of present petition,<br \/>\nare that the respondent workman was working in the establishment of<br \/>\npresent petitioner since 1981 as Assistant Manager and at the<br \/>\nrelevant time his salary was  Rs. 400\/-.  The petitioner is running a<br \/>\ncinema theatre at Nadiad, District-Kheda.  The respondent alleged<br \/>\nthat his services were terminated illegally with effect from 30th<br \/>\nJune, 1986 without complying the procedure prescribed by law.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the said action of the petitioner, the respondent herein<br \/>\ninitially issued the notice dated 24.10.1986.  He also claimed that<br \/>\nsubsequently he had issued notice on 21st June 1988.  The<br \/>\ndispute raised by the petitioner could not be settled during<br \/>\nconciliation proceedings which appear to have been initiated after<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s demand for reinstatement vide communication dated 6th<br \/>\nAugust, 1988.  The order of Reference came to be made on 19th<br \/>\nDecember, 1988.  The petitioner filed its reply \u00fd  against the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s claim statement &#8211; to the effect that it had purchased<br \/>\nthe theatre by a Conveyance Deed executed in July 1987 and by virtue<br \/>\nof the terms and conditions of the said conveyance deed, it was<br \/>\nagreed between the parties to the agreement that all  past<br \/>\nliabilities, including that of the employees, was of the erstwhile<br \/>\nowner of the theatre. On the basis of the said conveyance deed, the<br \/>\npetitioner prayed that it may not be saddled with any liability<br \/>\ntowards the respondent if the action of the erstwhile owner of the<br \/>\ntheatre was found to be illegal or unjustified.  After hearing the<br \/>\nparties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the action of<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s termination was illegal and that therefore the Court<br \/>\ndirected the petitioner to reinstate the respondent.  So far as the<br \/>\nissue of backwages is concerned, the Labour Court has observed that<br \/>\nit would not be justified to saddle the purchaser-petitioner with the<br \/>\nliability of the erstwhile owner, more particularly in view of the<br \/>\ntime-gap between the alleged termination and the date of order of<br \/>\nreference or the date on which the respondent raised demand\/dispute.<br \/>\nThe Court also considered that it was not believable that during the<br \/>\nentire period in question the respondent might  have remained wholly<br \/>\nunemployed during the long gap of 20 years.  Considering such<br \/>\naspects, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay 20% of<br \/>\nbackwages.  Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner has<br \/>\npreferred the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>SP Majmudar, learned advocate submitted that the  petitioner<br \/>\npurchased the theatre in July 1987 and that therefore it is not<br \/>\njustified to hold the present petitioner liable for any action of the<br \/>\nerstwhile owner, more particularly when the petitioner purchased the<br \/>\ntheatre with a clear understanding that all liabilities of the period<br \/>\nprior to the date of purchase would be that of the erstwhile owner.<br \/>\nHe further submitted that in view of the fact that the action<br \/>\nimpugned before the Labour Court was taken by the erstwhile owner of<br \/>\nthe theatre, it was not justified for the learned Labour Court to<br \/>\naccept the submissions of the respondent workman without any<br \/>\ncorroborating material to substantiate his claim that he was working<br \/>\nsince 1981 and\/or at the time of his alleged termination the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed by law was not complied with.  Mr. Majmudar<br \/>\nfurther submitted that without prejudice to the contentions and with<br \/>\na view to putting an end to this litigation the petitioner was ready<br \/>\nand willing to reinstate the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bharat Shah, appearing for the respondent, on the other hand,<br \/>\nsubmitted the respondent was illegally terminated with effect from<br \/>\nJune 1986 and that therefore the learned Labour Court is justified in<br \/>\nconcluding that there was breach of Section 25-F.  He also submitted<br \/>\nthat the Labour Court was also justified in holding that there was<br \/>\nbreach of Section 25-G and Section 25-H.  He submitted that the<br \/>\nrespondent had served the notices dated 24.10.1986 and 21.6.1988,<br \/>\nhowever the respondent was not reinstated and that therefore the<br \/>\naward passed by the Labour Court is correct and justified.  As<br \/>\nregards the direction for backwages, he submitted that the respondent<br \/>\nhas remained unemployed and today also he is unemployed and the<br \/>\npetitioner could not establish that the respondent was gainfully<br \/>\nemployed and that therefore the direction regarding backwages is also<br \/>\njustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tFrom<br \/>\nthe record, it transpires that the order of reference has been made<br \/>\nby the appropriate Government on 19th December, 1988.  The<br \/>\nrespondent appears to have claimed that he had served notice dated<br \/>\n24.10.1986, however, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner<br \/>\nherein purchased the establishment in July 1987 and that therefore<br \/>\nthe said notice could not have been served on present petitioner.<br \/>\nThe respondent has also claimed that he had thereafter issued notice<br \/>\ndated 21.6.1988.  Even if the said assertion of the respondent is to<br \/>\nbe presumed as correct, then also there is time gap of almost 2 years<br \/>\nbetween the date of alleged termination of the notice dated<br \/>\n21.6.1988.  It appears that it was two months thereafter that the<br \/>\nrespondent made an application seeking reinstatement on 6th<br \/>\nAugust 1988 and the industrial dispute  ultimately came to be<br \/>\nreferred on 19.12.1988.  Hence, there is a gap of almost 2 years<br \/>\nbetween the alleged date of termination and petitioner taking action<br \/>\nfor raising an industrial dispute, which would suggest that the<br \/>\nrespondent remained inactive for 2 years after his alleged<br \/>\ntermination and did not take active step for raising dispute. In the<br \/>\nevent of real and genuine unemployment the respondent would not have<br \/>\nremained so inactive and passive for almost 26 months in seeking<br \/>\nreinstatement.  The aforesaid aspect is relevant for considering the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s claim for backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the willingness expressed by the petitioner to reinstate the<br \/>\nrespondent, the issues related to the direction granting<br \/>\nreinstatement are not required to be examined and that therefore this<br \/>\nCourt has not gone into the said aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tThe<br \/>\nonly question which remains for consideration is about respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nclaim for backwages.  The Labour Court has granted backwages at the<br \/>\nrate of 25%.  On the fact that the petitioner raised dispute after a<br \/>\ngap of 2 years and on the fact that almost 20 years have passed-by<br \/>\nfrom the date of alleged termination till the date of the decision by<br \/>\nthe Labour Court, the Labour Court appears to be justified in<br \/>\nproceeding on the premise that the respondent could not have remained<br \/>\ncompletely unemployed during the said period of 20 years.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, after addressing the aforesaid aspect, the Labour<br \/>\nCourt failed to consider all relevant circumstances for determining<br \/>\nthe claim for backwages.  By now, in view of the judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court,  in  General Manager, Haryana Roadways<br \/>\nV\/s. Rudhan Singh reported in [2005(5) SCC 591]  it is<br \/>\nclear that the direction for backwages is not an automatic<br \/>\nconsequence of direction for reinstatement and while taking the<br \/>\ndecision regarding backwages, the Labour Court should take  all<br \/>\nrelevant and attending facts and circumstances into consideration.<br \/>\nIn present case, the Labour Court has failed to record any<br \/>\nsatisfactory reason for awarding 25% of backwages.  Differently put,<br \/>\nthe Labour Court has failed to consider relevant aspects and record<br \/>\nits reasons and findings in respect of such relevant aspects which<br \/>\nought to be addressed while deciding the issue of backwages and that<br \/>\ntherefore this Court is not inclined to uphold the said direction<br \/>\nregarding backwages.  The respondent has failed to explain the delay<br \/>\nin raising the dispute and has failed to  give any explanation about<br \/>\nthe means of maintaining himself and his family during past 20 years.<br \/>\n  On overall consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view<br \/>\nthat the Labour Court has not addressed the relevant aspects which<br \/>\nshould have been considered for deciding the issue of backwages and<br \/>\nit has also not recorded any sustainable reason for awarding<br \/>\nbackwages at the rate of 25% and that therefore the said directions<br \/>\ndeserve to be set aside.  Thus, so far as the direction regarding<br \/>\nreinstatement is concerned, the same is not disturbed and it is<br \/>\nconfirmed in view of the statement on behalf of the petitioner.  The<br \/>\npetitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent. So far as the<br \/>\ndirection regarding backwages is concerned, the same is set aside.<br \/>\nHowever, it is clarified that the respondent shall be entitled for<br \/>\ncontinuity of service from the date of his original appointment,<br \/>\ni.e., from 1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tWith<br \/>\nthe aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed<br \/>\nof.  Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.  No order as to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>[<br \/>\nK.M. Thaker, J. ]<\/p>\n<p>rmr.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 Bench: K.M.Thaker SCA\/13075\/2007 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13075 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To [&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-240776","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>Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-08T17:36:51+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-08T17:36:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1484,\"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\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-08T17:36:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-08T17:36:51+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-08T17:36:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008"},"wordCount":1484,"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\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008","name":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-08T17:36:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alankar-vs-umeshbhai-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alankar vs Umeshbhai on 8 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240776","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=240776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}