{"id":252244,"date":"2008-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-09T10:06:23","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T04:36:23","slug":"manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt<\/div>\n
  \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\/7337\/2008\t 9\/ 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. 7337 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMANJULABEN\nDHIRAJLAL JOSHI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKODINAR\nMUNICIPALITY & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nTR MISHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR YV SHAH for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nMs.V.S.Pathak, Asstt.GOVERNMENT\nPLEADER for Respondent(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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned counsels for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner has approached this Court under Art.226<\/a> of the
\n\tConstitution of India,  seeking writ of mandamum or any other
\n\tappropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for
\n\tcomplying with the order of this Court and resinstating the
\n\tpetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel Mr. Shah waives service of rule.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts, in brief, deserve to be set out as under :\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner who was serving as a Teacher came to be terminated and,
\n\thence, she raised industrial dispute which came to be decided on
\n\t27-1-2000 wherein the respondents were directed to reinstate the
\n\tpetitioner and treat her temporary for five years and, thereafter,
\n\tordered to be permanent and entitled for all consequential benefits.
\n\t This award of Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the
\n\trespondent-Municipality by preferrring Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.2894 of 2000.  It deserves to be noted at this stage that
\n\tMunicipality though challenged the award, reinstated the petitioner
\n\tand terminated her services by way of discharge simplicitor.
\n\tAgainst this order, petitioner preferred Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.2122 of 2002 wherein this Court (Coram : R.M.Doshit, J.) on
\n\t17-4-2002 passed an order allowing the petition and quashed and set
\n\taside order dated 19-12-2001.  The relevant portion thereof deserves
\n\tto be set out as under  :\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdSIt
\n\t\tis, however, clarified that respondent Municipality shall be at
\n\t\tliberty to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, after
\n\t\tgiving her an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action
\n\t\tand of hearing, if desired.\u00fd\u00fd\t\t<\/p>\n
Pursuant
\n\tto the order, the petitioner was reinstated but once again she was
\n\tterminated as per the say of the petitioner without following due
\n\tprocedure of law and, therefore, she challenged the same by
\n\tpreferring Special Civil Application No.11098 of 2003.  It deserves
\n\tto be noted that Municipality also preferred Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.2894 of 2000 this petition as well as petitioner’s
\n\tsubsequent Special Civil Application No.11098 of 2003 were heard
\n\ttogether (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) on 30-8-2005 and 5-9-2005.  The
\n\taward of Industrial Tribunal was quashed and set aside in light of
\n\tthe decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Miss A.Sundarambal
\n\tv. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu & Ors. Reported<\/a> in AIR
\n\t1988 SC 1700, but the Court allowed the petition being Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.11098 of 2003 as the petitioner had been terminated
\n\twithout following procedure of law.  The Court quashed and set aside
\n\timpugned order dated 19-12-2001 and ordered necessary consequences
\n\tto follow, however, clarifying that Municipality shall be at liberty
\n\tto take action against the petitioner after giving her show cause
\n\tnotice against the proposed action and of hearing, if desired.  The
\n\trelevant portion deserves to be set out from order dated 30-8-2005
\n\t:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS3.In
\n\t\tso far as, Special Civil Application No.2894\/2000 is concerned, the
\n\t\tshort ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the
\n\t\trespondent was engaged as a school teacher and she was, therefore,
\n\t\tnot a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>. It
\n\t\twas, therefore, contended that the Industrial Tribunal was not
\n\t\tcompetent to entertain the reference of the respondent.  In view of
\n\t\tthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss
\n\t\tA.Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu & Ors.,
\n\t\tReported<\/a> in AIR 1988 SC 1700, learned advocate Mr. Mishra appearing
\n\t\tfor the respondent is not in a position to controvert the
\n\t\tsubmissions of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the
\n\t\taward of the Industrial Tribunal is required to be quashed and set
\n\t\taside and petition is allowed without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n\t\tThe position of Special Civil Application No.11098\/2003 is somewhat
\n\t\tdifferent.  The said petition pertains to the termination of the
\n\t\tpetitioner school teacher sought to be brought about by the
\n\t\trespondent employer by order dated 13th September, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
4.2
\n\t\tAfter the order passed by the Court on 17th April, 2002
\n\t\tpetitioner was reinstated in service. However, immediately
\n\t\tthereafter, by the impugned order dated 13th September,
\n\t\t2002 she was once again terminated. In order dated 13th
\n\t\tSeptember, 2002 it is indicated that the petitioner ws appointed
\n\t\twithout proper procedure and is, therefore, required to be
\n\t\tterminated. This order dated 13th September, 2002 also
\n\t\twas not preceded by any show cause notice nor any opportunity of
\n\t\tbeing heard given to the petitioner.  As noted earlier in the order
\n\t\tdated 17th April, 2002 filed by the petitioner
\n\t\tchallenging her termination, learned Single Judge provided that
\n\t\teven if her services are to be terminated on the ground that she is
\n\t\tnot qualified as a teacher or that she was regularly recruited, she
\n\t\tis entitled to defence before such order is passed. It was found
\n\t\tthat since the order was passed without giving an opportunity of
\n\t\tshowing cause or hearing the same canot be sustained. The Court
\n\t\talso kept the option open for the employer to take disciplinary
\n\t\taction against the teacher. In the present case, neither of these
\n\t\ttwo opportunities provided by the Court have been availed of.
\n\t\tAdmittedly no disciplinary action is taken against the petitioner
\n\t\tbefore passing order dated 13th September, 2004. No
\n\t\topportunity was given  to the petitioner to represent her case
\n\t\talso. In view of the matter, the Municipality did not follow the
\n\t\torder passed by this Court between the same parties. Impugned order
\n\t\tof termination dated 13th September, 2002 is, therefore,
\n\t\trequired to be and is hereby quashed and set aside with all
\n\t\tconsequential effect.\u00fd\u00fd \t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
After
\n\tthis order was passed, the petitioner had not been reinstated  nor
\n\thas she been given any opportunity whatsoever. The petitioner was
\n\tinformed by letter dated 27-10-2005 by the Chief Officer,
\n\tNagarpalika, Kodinar that her application with regard to
\n\treinstatement, she is informed that Nagarpalika has preferred Review
\n\tPetition and LPA and it is pending and, therefore, after the same is
\n\tdecided, due compliance will be observed.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner till date has not been reinstated and, therefore, she has
\n\tfiled this petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tMishra for the petitioner has submitted that the inaction on the
\n\tpart of respondent-authority deserves to be depricated as despite
\n\ttherebeing two orders by this Court calling upon the Municipality to
\n\tcomply with the requirement of law, the Municipality has sat tight
\n\tover the situation and not reinstated the petitiner. In reply to the
\n\tcontention with regard to availability of alternative remedy, Mr.
\n\tMishra vehemently submitted that the remedy which is proposed to be
\n\talternative remedy by the learned Counsel for the Municipality,
\n\tcannot be said to be alternative remedy so efficacious as to meet
\n\twith the end of justice. Mr.Mishra has relied upon the decision of
\n\tthis Court in the case of Tulsiram Ramdas v. General Manager,
\n\tWestern Railway, dated 28-4-1998 in Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.7737 of 1997 (Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G.Balakrishnan and
\n\tMr.Justice J.M.Panchal, as Their Lordships then were).  Mr. Mishra
\n\tread the observations made therein and submitted that the respondent
\n\tMunicipality cannot be permitted to sit tight over the situation and
\n\tnot comply with the order of this Court.  Mr.Mishra also relied upon
\n\tthe decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.N.State
\n\tTransport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam<\/a>, reported in
\n\t2002 SCC (L&S) 40.  Relying upon para-16 and observations made
\n\ttherein, Mr. Mishra vehemently submitted that the petitioner cannot
\n\tbe denied relief under the spacious plea of availability of so
\n\tcalled alternative remedy. Mr. Mishra relied upon the decision of
\n\tHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar
\n\tof Trademarks, Mumbai<\/a>, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and submitted that
\n\trelegating the petition to alternative remedy is self-imposed
\n\trestriction and the same cannot be availed of in all the case
\n\tuniformly. Mr.Mishra further relied upon the decision reported in
\n\t(2003) 2 SCC 107 in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v.Indian Oil
\n\tCorporation Ltd<\/a>. in support of his submission that if workman’s
\n\twages are denied, then efficacious plea of alternative  remedy
\n\tshall not be impediment in the exercise of jurisdiction under
\n\tArt.226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.  Mr.Mishra further submitted
\n\tthat rule 189 and rule 190 pressed into service by the learned
\n\tCounsel for the Municipality are merely procedural rules and
\n\tsubstantive petition under Art.226<\/a> of the Constitution of India
\n\tseeking mandamus  cannot be said to be non-maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tY.V.Shah for the respondent-Municipality very candidly stated at the
\n\tbar that LPA which was preferred challenging the decision of this
\n\tCourt passed in group of applications being Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.2894 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.11098
\n\tof 2003, has been dismissed for default as objections were not
\n\tremoved and, therefore, it has not been pursued. Review Application
\n\twas filed challenging the order dated 30-8-2005 passed by this Court
\n\t(Coram : Mr.Akil Kureshi, J.) in Special Civil Application No.2894
\n\tof 2000 and Special Civil Application No.11098 of 2003 but could not
\n\tpoint out the result thereof. He submitted, however, that
\n\tavailability of alternative remedy which can be said to be
\n\tefficacious cannot be brushed aside lightly and in that view of the
\n\tmatter, this petition is not maintainable.  Relying upon the
\n\tdecision of this Court in the case of Renumal V. Bijani v. Bantwa
\n\tMunicipal Borough, repoted in 2002(3) GLH 570. Mr.Shah vehemently
\n\tsubmitted that the remedy available is execution and, therefore, the
\n\tpetition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
\n\tpapers pertaining to the matter. There cannot be any dispute with
\n\tthe principle regarding exercising jurisdiction under Art.227<\/a> of the
\n\tConstitution of India  when alternative remedy is available, is now
\n\tcrystalized and hardly needs any elaborate discussion thereon.  The
\n\tCourt proposes to enlist undisputed facts and rival contentions of
\n\tthe learned advocates for the parties with regard to maintainability
\n\tof the petition.\n<\/p>\n
1)
\n\t\tThe lady teacher was initially recruited as part time fixed pay
\n\t\temployee and her services were terminated and she had to move the
\n\t\tconcerned Industrial Tribunal for raising industrial dispute and
\n\t\tshe had to time and again visit Court of Law  under different
\n\t\tlitigations.\n<\/p>\n
2)
\n\t\tThe order of Industrial Tribunal has been set aside but prior
\n\t\tthereto, the order of this Court in Special Civil Application
\n\t\tNo.2122 of 2002 is in her favour.  Mr.Shah has submitted that this
\n\t\torder was complied with.  In fact, even in this order dated
\n\t\t17-4-3003, this Court (Coram : R.M.Doshi, J.)clarified that
\n\t\t\u00fdSrespondent Municipality shall be at liberty to take disciplinary
\n\t\taction against the petitioner, after giving her an opportunity to
\n\t\tshow cause against the proposed action and of hearing, if desired.\u00fd\u00fd
\n\t\t This order has not been challenged in any forum whatsoever and it
\n\t\twas interpreted by the Municipality as per its understanding and
\n\t\tterminated services of the petitioner admittedly without affording
\n\t\tany opportunity of hearing as provided by this Court in order dated
\n\t\t17-4-2002 passed in Special Civil Applcation No.2122 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
These
\n\tfacts have been pleaded and, therefore, in aforesaid two petitions
\n\tbeing Special Civil Application No.2894 of 2000 and Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.11098 of 2003 (Coram : Mr.Akil Kureshi, J.) in the
\n\torder dated 5-9-2005 specifically observed that impugned order which
\n\taccording to the Municipality had been passed in due compliance of
\n\ttheir understanding of law, was made without affording opportunity
\n\tof showing cause or hearing the petitioner and, therefore, that
\n\torder had been quashed and set aside and directions were issued as
\n\tunder :\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdSIn
\n\t\tthat view of the matter, the Municipality did not follow the order
\n\t\tpassed between the same parties. Impugned order of termination
\n\t\tdated 13th September, 2002 is, therefore, required to be
\n\t\tand is hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential effect.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthis order has not been complied with by the Municipality in a given
\n\tcase and peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court may decline to
\n\texercise its jurisdiction under Art.226<\/a> of the Constitution of India
\n\ton the basis of availability of alternative remedy.  One need not
\n\tlose sight of the fact that alternative remedy has to be efficacious
\n\tand effective remedy.  In the instant case, it is not merely case of
\n\tseeking or praying for enforcing the order of Industrial Tribunal or
\n\tpraying for contempt, it is a case where citizen has come forward
\n\tcomplaining about absolute careless attitude and scant disregard to
\n\tthe order of this Court under the guise of so called interpretation
\n\twhich prima facie appears to be absolutely unjust and intolerable.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tdecision cited at bar by Mr. Shah will have no applicability to the
\n\tfacts and circumstances of the present case.  As it is stated herein
\n\tabove, it is not case of seeking compliance of the order passed by
\n\tthe Industrial Tribunal.  It is actually the conduct of the
\n\tMunicipality which is being assailed by the citizen so as to seek
\n\twrit of mandamus to the Municipality to do its duty.  Municipality
\n\tcannot deny that it has not been under obligation to comply with the
\n\torder of this Court.  When the order of this Court has remained to
\n\tbe complied with, writ of mandamus in light of the decision of
\n\tHon’ble Apex Court is required to be issued and, therefore, this
\n\tpetition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent-Municipality
\n\tis hereby directed to comply with the order dated 5-9-2005 within
\n\tthree months from today. However, there shall be no order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
vijay*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt SCA\/7337\/2008 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7337 of 2008 ========================================================= MANJULABEN DHIRAJLAL JOSHI – Petitioner(s) Versus KODINAR MUNICIPALITY & 1 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TR MISHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR […]<\/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-252244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T04:36:23+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T04:36:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2208,\"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\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T04:36:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 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":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T04:36:23+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T04:36:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008"},"wordCount":2208,"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\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008","name":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T04:36:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjulaben-vs-kodinar-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manjulaben vs Kodinar on 12 September, 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\/252244","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=252244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252244\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}