{"id":242971,"date":"2011-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011"},"modified":"2019-02-27T02:56:41","modified_gmt":"2019-02-26T21:26:41","slug":"rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\nCRA\/66\/2004\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 66 of 2004\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\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\nRAMESHKUMAR\nCHHOTALAL SHAH - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPATEL\nVARANASIBHAI SHIVRAM - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nTV SHAH for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/05\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>By<br \/>\n\tway of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia<br \/>\n\tprayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated<br \/>\n\t30th September 2003 passed by the Joint District Judge,<br \/>\n\tBanaskantha, confirming the judgment and order dated 29th<br \/>\n\tNovember 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deesa in<br \/>\n\tRegular Civil Suit No.175 of 1989, whereby the trial Court had<br \/>\n\tdismissed the suit filed by the applicant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the applicant that the applicant-landlord, who is<br \/>\n\toriginal appellant-plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No.175 of<br \/>\n\t1989 for possession of the suit premises prescribed in paragraph 3<br \/>\n\tof the original plaint on the ground of arrears of rent and for<br \/>\n\tamount of arrears and mesne profit against the respondent-tenant,<br \/>\n\twho is original respondent-defendant in the Court of Civil Judge<br \/>\n\t(Junior Division) at Deesa, which ultimately came to be dismissed<br \/>\n\tvide impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the said<br \/>\n\tjudgment and decree, the applicant preferred Regular Civil Appeal<br \/>\n\tNo.53 of 1995 before the Court of 2nd Joint District<br \/>\n\tJudge, Banaskantha at Deesa. The said appeal came to be dismissed<br \/>\n\tvide impugned judgment and order. Hence, present Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.T.V.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShah, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the<br \/>\n\tCourts below have failed to appreciate that the notice at Exhibit 52<br \/>\n\tis not as per the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents,<br \/>\n\tHotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter<br \/>\n\treferred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;); that the Courts below have erred in<br \/>\n\tholding that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act as well as<br \/>\n\tunder Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is also required;<br \/>\n\tthat the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit falls<br \/>\n\twithin the purview of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act; that the Courts<br \/>\n\tbelow have erred in presuming that the opponent ought not to have<br \/>\n\trefused the suit notice if the notice of atonement had been issued<br \/>\n\tby the applicant previously and that when the opponent has paid the<br \/>\n\tarrears of rent, the applicant is entitled for recovery of<br \/>\n\tpossession of the suit property. Mr. Shah has also read over<br \/>\n\tparagraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and order passed by<br \/>\n\tthe lower Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\tIn<br \/>\nsupport of his submissions, Mr.Shah has relied upon the decision of<br \/>\nthe Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1188309\/\">V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai<br \/>\nAmmar,<\/a> reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745, whereby the Apex Court<br \/>\nhas held that in order to get a decree or order for eviction against<br \/>\na tenant under any State Rent Control Act it is not necessary to give<br \/>\nnotice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of<br \/>\naforesaid, it is prayed that present Revision Application may be<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having<br \/>\n\tconsidered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the<br \/>\n\tapplicant, averments made in the Revision Application and the<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence produced on record, including the impugned<br \/>\n\tjudgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as judgment<br \/>\n\tand order passed by the lower Appellate Court, it transpires that<br \/>\n\tthe notice at Exhibit 52 was not issued under Section 12(2) of the<br \/>\n\tAct read with Sections 106 and 111(g) and (h)  of the Transfer of<br \/>\n\tProperty Act. However, by way of the said notice, it was only<br \/>\n\tintimated to the opponent-tenant that the sale transaction of the<br \/>\n\tsuit shop and partition of the shop as mentioned in the said<br \/>\n\tregistered sale deed and becoming the owner of the suit shop, for<br \/>\n\twhich the applicant is entitled to recover the arrears of rent as<br \/>\n\twell as future rent, which is called the notice of attornment.<br \/>\n\tFurther, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that after<br \/>\n\tissuance of notice at Exhibit 52, no notice under section 12(2) of<br \/>\n\tthe Act read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, has<br \/>\n\tbeen issued by the applicant to the opponent herein regarding<br \/>\n\ttermination of the tenancy right over the suit shop and handing over<br \/>\n\tthe possession of the suit shop on account of non-compliance of the<br \/>\n\tsaid notice before filing the said suit. Further, no averment is<br \/>\n\tmade in the plaint regarding termination of the tenancy right of the<br \/>\n\topponent.  It is required to be noted that when the opponent came to<br \/>\n\tknow that he is in arrears of rent, he immediately paid the entire<br \/>\n\tamount of arrears of rent before the trial Court and nothing was<br \/>\n\toutstanding as observed in the impugned judgment and decree. It has<br \/>\n\tbeen rightly observed by the trial Court that there is no breach of<br \/>\n\tprovision of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. It is required to be noted<br \/>\n\tthat in the present case, the suit has been after a period of<br \/>\n\t1-year, 9-months and 16-days after issuance of notice. In that view<br \/>\n\tof the matter also, the applicant ought to have issued notice just<br \/>\n\tprior to filing of the suit, which is not done so and that<br \/>\n\testablishes mala fide intention on the part of the applicant. In<br \/>\n\tthat view of the matter, the view taken by the trial Court is just<br \/>\n\tand proper. The lower Appellate Court has after relying upon the<br \/>\n\tdecision of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1697633\/\">Mahendra Raghunathdas<br \/>\n\tGupta v. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul and others<\/a>, reported in AIR 1997<br \/>\n\tSC 2437, has rightly observed that the opponent has been issued a<br \/>\n\tnotice at Exhibit 52, which is for attornment.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tSo<br \/>\nfar as decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate<br \/>\nfor the applicant Mr.Shah in the case of V. Dhanpal Chettiar<br \/>\n(supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the<br \/>\nApex Court has held that in order to get a decree or order for<br \/>\neviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act, it is not<br \/>\nnecessary to give notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act.  In the present case, the findings recorded by the<br \/>\ntrial Court in that regard are absolutely just and proper and they<br \/>\nare not contrary to the said decision. So far as the findings of the<br \/>\nAppellate Court in this respect are concerned, this Court may not<br \/>\nadopt the same in this respect. The trial Court has rightly observed<br \/>\nthat there is no breach of provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.<br \/>\nThus, the said decision cited by the learned advocate for the<br \/>\napplicant would not be helpful to the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving<br \/>\n\tat the impugned conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I<br \/>\n\tadopt the reasons assigned by the trial Court and do not find any<br \/>\n\tillegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am<br \/>\n\tin complete<br \/>\n\tagreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. No case is<br \/>\n\tmade out to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court.<br \/>\n\tHence, present Revision Application deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>For<br \/>\n\tthe foregoing reasons, present Revision Application fails and is,<br \/>\n\taccordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.<br \/>\n\tInterim relief, if any, stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>Jhaveri, J)<\/p>\n<p>Aakar<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/66\/2004 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 66 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-242971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/rameshkumar-vs-it-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=\"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-26T21:26:41+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=\"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\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T21:26:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1183,\"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\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T21:26:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshkumar vs It 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":"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-26T21:26:41+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T21:26:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011"},"wordCount":1183,"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\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011","name":"Rameshkumar vs It on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T21:26:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshkumar-vs-it-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshkumar vs It 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\/242971","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=242971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}