{"id":247234,"date":"2011-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-19T06:35:32","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T01:05:32","slug":"special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,<\/div>\n<pre>     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 647 of 1985\n\n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     MAFATLAL ENGINEERING IND LTD.\nVersus\n     FELIS CARVALHO\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     Appearance:\n     1. Special Civil Application No. 647 of 1985\n          MR VIMAL PATEL FOR MR KS NANAVATI for Petitioner No. 1\n          RULE UNSERVED for Respondent No. 1\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\n\n              Date of Order: 09\/01\/2002\n\n\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>     #.         Heard Mr.Vimal Patel, learned advocate for<br \/>\n     Mr.K.S.Nanavati, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     #.    In   the   present petition, the petitioner has<br \/>\n     challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda<br \/>\n     in Reference No.156 \/ 1982 vide Exh.64 dated 18th<br \/>\n     December, 1984. This Court has issued RULE and granted<br \/>\n     Ad-interim stay by order dated 9th July, 1985. However,<br \/>\n     service of Rule, despite of many efforts have made by the<br \/>\n     petitioner as well as Registrar of this Court, but<br \/>\n     unfortunately, could not be served on the respondent.<br \/>\n     But according to the office note, notice of rule has been<br \/>\n     served on the respondent by affixing as the respondent is<br \/>\n     not found. It is further noticed that thereafter fresh<br \/>\n     notice issued on the respondent, also returned unserved<br \/>\n     as &#8220;respondent    not   residing   at   given   address&#8221;.<br \/>\n     Thereafter this matter was placed before the Court of<br \/>\n     Joint Registrar and Registrar has ordered that action to<br \/>\n     be taken on or before 6th April, 1995 failing the matter<br \/>\n     will stand dismissed for non       prosecution   as   the<br \/>\n     respondent being sole respondent but despite this, no<br \/>\n     action has been taken by the petitioner though time<br \/>\n     extended on several occasions.      Thus, in view of the<br \/>\n     office note, notice of rule is already affixed at the<br \/>\n     residence of respondent but despite this, the respondent<br \/>\n has not appeared in the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>#. Apart from the facts discussed above, if the impugned<br \/>\naward passed by the labour court         is   taken   into<br \/>\nconsideration,   it   reveals    that the respondent is<br \/>\nsuffering from psychiatric      disease   and   therefore,<br \/>\nnaturally,   considering the office note, it can be<br \/>\npresumed that the respondent may not be having any<br \/>\ninterest in such proceedings.      However, this being the<br \/>\nold matter of the year 1985, this matter is taken up for<br \/>\nfinal hearing in absence of the respondent who has been<br \/>\nserved by affixing the service.\n<\/p>\n<p>#. The labour court has set aside the order of dismissal<br \/>\ndated 18th December, 1981 and directed reinstatement with<br \/>\n50 % backwages from 1st September, 1983 and full wages<br \/>\nfrom 1st June, 1984.      The Labour Court has further<br \/>\nobserved that during the course of pendency of Reference,<br \/>\nif the company is already closed down, then whatever will<br \/>\nbe the fate of the other employees, similar treatment<br \/>\nwill be given to the present respondent. A chargesheet<br \/>\ndated 19th July, 1981 has been produced on record as<br \/>\nAnnexure-B at   Pg.     31, wherein following relevant<br \/>\nallegations were made against the respondent;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Oflate, you are behaving in an abnormal and<br \/>\n        funny way. You do not concentrate in your office<br \/>\n        work assigned to you and while away your working<br \/>\n        time in making out different stories in the name<br \/>\n        of God [`Devi&#8217;] and evil spirit. You pick up<br \/>\n        quarrel with your colleagues and superiors on one<br \/>\n        or the other ground.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>#.   On the basis     of   the   aforesaid   allegations,<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry was held and after conclusion of the<br \/>\ndepartmental   inquiry,   the   respondent   workman was<br \/>\ndismissed from service. However, the labour court has<br \/>\nobserved in detailed and come to the conclusion that at<br \/>\nthe relevant time the respondent workman was suffering<br \/>\nfrom mental disease having psychiatric problem and his<br \/>\nbehaviour is abnormal. This is a clear finding of the<br \/>\nlabour court but despite this, simultaneously the Labour<br \/>\nCourt has considered one certificate given by Dr.Sheth<br \/>\ndated 30th May, 1983, wherein the present respondent has<br \/>\nbeen declared to be fit and therefore, reinstatement has<br \/>\nbeen granted.    It is also pertinent to note that before<br \/>\nthe labour court, department inquiry was not challenged.<br \/>\nBut on the contrary, the finding was accepted by the<br \/>\nlabour court but only considering the powers under<br \/>\nSection 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has set aside the dismissal order and<br \/>\n granted reinstatement to the respondent workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>#. Learned advocate Mr.Vimal Patel has also pointed out<br \/>\ncertain other factual aspects in the present petition at<br \/>\npg.14 in para-7.3 that the        reinstatement   of   the<br \/>\nrespondent is not possible inasmuch as there is closure<br \/>\nof the petitioner company with effect from 20th July,<br \/>\n1984.   In this connection, it is also submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner company runs two plants, of which, one is<br \/>\nsituate at Kalve in the State of Maharashtra and the<br \/>\nother is situated at Vishvamitri Road, Baroda and the<br \/>\npetitioner company effected closure of Baroda plant which<br \/>\nwas taken over the Padma Tex Engineering Ltd. except the<br \/>\nAssembly Department.     It is also pointed out that it is<br \/>\ntrue that the petitioner company had filed a petition in<br \/>\nthe High Court being Special Civil Application No.3852\/84<br \/>\nin the mater of closure of the petitioner company.<br \/>\nHowever, thereafter the petitioner company as well as the<br \/>\nPadma ex Engineering Ltd., entered into a settlement<br \/>\nunder Section 2[p] with the Union concerned viz. Gujarat<br \/>\nEngineering and General Kamdar Union, Baroda on 28-8-1984<br \/>\nand in pursuance of the said settlement, the petitioner<br \/>\ncompany submitted the consent terms dated 4-9-1984 under<br \/>\nwhich   the   petitioner    withdrawn   said petition on<br \/>\nappropriate order of the High Court.    Therefore, it is<br \/>\npointed out that in view of these circumstances, in any<br \/>\ncase, the respondent cannot be reinstated         in   the<br \/>\nemployment of the petitioner company and in any case, the<br \/>\nrespondent is not entitled to reinstatement with 50 %<br \/>\nback wages because of the special circumstances relating<br \/>\nto his conduct and abnormal behavior.\n<\/p>\n<p>#.   I have perused the award passed by the labour court,<br \/>\nBaroda. It is found that the labour court has come to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that during pendency of the departmental<br \/>\ninquiry, the respondent workman was suffering from mental<br \/>\ndisease, therefore, the petitioner company should have to<br \/>\nwait till the respondent workman is cured from said<br \/>\ndisease.   Therefore, the labour court has come to the<br \/>\nconclusion that considering this fact that whatever<br \/>\nmisbehavior and abnormal conduct on account of mental<br \/>\ndisease, which could have been pardoned by the petitioner<br \/>\ncompany and same could not have been considered to be<br \/>\nserious one and therefore, while exercising the powers<br \/>\nunder Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\nmodified the punishment and granted certain relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>#.    The Labour Court has taken view for granting<br \/>\nbackwages. However, so far the backwages are concerned,<br \/>\nthe respondent workman has been awarded the backwages for<br \/>\nthe period, during which, the respondent workman was<br \/>\n suffering from mental disease and naturally for said<br \/>\nperiod, the respondent workman was not in position to<br \/>\nwork. Therefore, in view of this Court, for said period,<br \/>\nthe respondent workman was not entitled to any backwages.<br \/>\nBut taking into consideration the certificate dated 17th<br \/>\nAugust, 1983 given by Dr.Sheth and the opinion of<br \/>\nDr.Khurana dated 8th May, 1984, the labour court has<br \/>\ngranted 50 % backwages with effect from 1st Sept., 1983<br \/>\nand also awarded full wages with effect from 1st June,<br \/>\n1984.   Therefore, considering all these aspects of the<br \/>\nmatter, according to my opinion, once the labour court<br \/>\nhas come to the conclusion that the charge levelled<br \/>\nagainst the respondent workman is found to be proved and<br \/>\nwhen   the finding is not held to be vitiated and<br \/>\nconsidering one more aspect of the matter that the<br \/>\nrespondent workman was undisputedly suffering from mental<br \/>\ndisease and under its effect, resulted into misbehavior<br \/>\nand abnormal conduct of the respondent workman in the<br \/>\nDepartment,   naturally the company cannot bear such<br \/>\nworkman to be continued in service. But the labour court<br \/>\nonly considering the certificates of Dr.Sheth and opinion<br \/>\nof Dr.Khuran has granted backwages taking into the aspect<br \/>\nthat once the order of dismissal is considered to be<br \/>\ndisproportionate in light of subsequent development.<br \/>\nTherefore, in such circumstances, the labour court should<br \/>\nnot have to grant backwages. Therefore, in view of these<br \/>\nfacts, according to my opinion, such person cannot be<br \/>\nreinstated   in   service   because   of the subsequent<br \/>\ncertificate declaring fitness as certified by Dr.Sheth<br \/>\nand Dr.Khuran but fact remains that at the relevant time<br \/>\nwhen the dismissal order was passed, the respondent<br \/>\nworkman was suffering from mental disease. Moreover, one<br \/>\nmore fact which cannot be ignored at this juncture is<br \/>\nthat the labour court has only considered the two<br \/>\ncertificates, one by Dr.Sheth and other by Dr.Khurana<br \/>\nthat now the respondent workman is fit but this fact<br \/>\ncannot be considered as guarantee against probability<br \/>\nthat fresh attack of mental disease may not come again at<br \/>\nany time on respondent workman.      Therefore, in such<br \/>\ncircumstances the reinstatement ordered by the labour<br \/>\ncourt, in view of this Court, seems to be unwarranted in<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>#.   Therefore, in view of discussion, according to my<br \/>\nopinion, the labour court has wrongly exercised the<br \/>\npowers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\nand therefore grant of reinstatement and backwages is<br \/>\nclear error apparently on the face of record. It is<br \/>\nfurther observed that subsequent      events   are  also<br \/>\nnecessary to be considered that the petitioner company<br \/>\nhas already been closed down with effect from 20th July,<br \/>\n 1984.   Therefore, naturally reinstatement is also not<br \/>\npossible and looking to the subsequent settlement with<br \/>\nthe Union by the petitioner company as well Padma Tex<br \/>\nEngineering Ltd on 28th August, 1984, award passed by the<br \/>\nlabour court, cannot be sustained.    In view of these<br \/>\nfacts, the labour court has committed gross error in<br \/>\nsetting aside the dismissal granting reinstatement with<br \/>\nsome backwages in favour of the respondent workman and<br \/>\ntherefore, same requires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>##. In the result, present petition succeeds. The award<br \/>\nimpugned in this petition passed by the labour court,<br \/>\nBaroda in Reference No.156 \/ 1982 dated 10th December,<br \/>\n1984 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made<br \/>\nabsolute with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Date : 9-1-2002[H.K.Rathod, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#kailash#\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod, IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 647 of 1985 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; MAFATLAL ENGINEERING IND LTD. Versus FELIS CARVALHO &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 647 of 1985 MR VIMAL PATEL [&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-247234","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>Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 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\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-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=\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-19T01:05:32+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\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T01:05:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"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\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T01:05:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 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\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-19T01:05:32+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\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T01:05:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011"},"wordCount":1597,"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\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011","name":"Special Civil Application No. 647 ... vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T01:05:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-647-vs-rule-unserved-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Special Civil Application No. 647 &#8230; vs Rule Unserved For on 2 August, 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:\/\/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\/247234","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=247234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}