{"id":2749,"date":"2010-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-11T16:07:07","modified_gmt":"2016-12-11T10:37:07","slug":"bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/11156\/2009\t 2\/ 7\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. 11156 of 2009\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBHAVNAGAR\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDHARMENDRA\nB VEGAD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHS MUNSHAW for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR TR\nMISHRA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\tDate\n: 21\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Mr. HS Munshaw on behalf of petitioner, learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. TR Mishra appearing for respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation has challenged award<br \/>\n\tpassed by Labour Court in reference no. 294\/2005 decided on<br \/>\n\t25\/5\/2009, where Labour Court has granted reinstatement with<br \/>\n\tcontinuity of service w.e.f. 27\/11\/1993 with consequential benefits<br \/>\n\twith 10% back wages of interim period on original post.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that Labour Court has committed gross<br \/>\n\terror in granting relief in favour of respondent workman.  The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner Corporation is undertaking various public projects and<br \/>\n\tfor execution of such works it has to engage labourers as daily<br \/>\n\twager or on contractual basis or on fixed term based, depend upon<br \/>\n\tadministrative requirement. By letter dated 6\/11\/1993, respondent<br \/>\n\twas engaged for a period of one month for survey work of town<br \/>\n\tplaning scheme no. 12 &amp; 14.  He had worked only for 45 days as<br \/>\n\tdaily wager pursuance to said order.  Thereafter, he was not<br \/>\n\tprovided worked.  Therefore, dispute has been raised by respondent<br \/>\n\twhich was referred for adjudication and ultimately Labour Court has<br \/>\n\tgranted reinstatement with continuity of service with 10% back wages<br \/>\n\tof interim period.\n<\/p>\n<p>Along<br \/>\n\twith present petition, copy of statement of claim filed by workman<br \/>\n\tand contractual appointment given to respondent by order dated<br \/>\n\t6\/11\/1993, written statement filed by Corporation and written<br \/>\n\targument produced by petitioner Corporation are annexed.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered submission made by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that<br \/>\n\taccording to case of workman as per statement of claim exh 3, he was<br \/>\n\tappointed by order dated 6\/11\/1993 and his service was terminated<br \/>\n\tafter completion of a period of 27\/11\/1993.  The total period of<br \/>\n\tservice is less than 30 days.  The termination is dated 27\/11\/1993,<br \/>\n\tfor that, dispute has been raised and referred for adjudication on<br \/>\n\t27\/10\/2005 after a period of 12 years.  According to him such<br \/>\n\tbelated delay and latches, reference itself is not maintainable and<br \/>\n\tLabour Court should not have to entertain such belated reference.<br \/>\n\tAccording to Corporation, ten labourers were appointed on contract<br \/>\n\tbasis for specific period and a moment period was over their<br \/>\n\tservices has came to an end and they were taken on fixed salary.<br \/>\n\tBefore Labour Court number of documents and number of decisions have<br \/>\n\tbeen relied by both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort fact is that it is not the case of workman that he has<br \/>\n\tcompleted 240 days continuous service, therefore, breach of section<br \/>\n\t25 F of I. D. Act, 1947 does not arise.  Before, Labour Court one<br \/>\n\twitness Dhirajbhai Laljibhai Makwana was examined by petitioner exh<br \/>\n\t84, where he has admitted that  at present five posts are found to<br \/>\n\tbe vacant where workman was appointed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Mishra submitted that after termination of respondent,<br \/>\n\tnew and fresh employees have been recruited.  That fact has been<br \/>\n\tproved before Labour Court by concern employee as discussed in award<br \/>\n\tpara 8(C) where Labour Court has considered whether section 25 H of<br \/>\n\tI. D. Act, has been violated by petitioner Corporation or<br \/>\n\tnot?Considering evidence of workman that after his termination, on<br \/>\n\t5\/1\/1994 (exh 9 to 10), workmen were recruited or appointed and on<br \/>\n\t11\/1\/1994 that amendment order has been reproduced before Labour<br \/>\n\tCourt.  Vide exh 10 dated 10\/2\/1994, exh 15 dated 30\/6\/1994 certain<br \/>\n\tlabourers have been engaged by petitioner Corporation.  Vide exh 16<br \/>\n\tto 70 on different dates fresh Labuorers have been engaged for<br \/>\n\tperforming same kind of work, which was performed by workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tLabour Court has come to conclusion that work which was performed by<br \/>\n\tworkman, was remained continue and there is no justification to<br \/>\n\tterminate contract even in favour of respondent workman and nine<br \/>\n\temployees those who were appointed or engaged along with respondent<br \/>\n\tworkmen, were subsequently engaged by petitioner Corporation.  All<br \/>\n\tnine employees have been made permanent that facts have been<br \/>\n\tadmitted by witness of Corporation Shri Dhirajbhai Laljibhai<br \/>\n\tMakwana.  Shri Dipakbhai and Shri Kishorbhai, both were appointed as<br \/>\n\tdaily wager on contract basis along with respondent workmen.  Now<br \/>\n\tboth employees have been made permanent by petitioner Corporation.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, petitioner Corporation has violated provision of section<br \/>\n\t25 H of I. D. Act, because juniors to respondent workmen have been<br \/>\n\tengaged for doing same kind of work, but respondent workman was not<br \/>\n\tcalled by petitioner Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relying<br \/>\n\tupon section 25 H of I. D. Act, Labour Court has granted relief in<br \/>\n\tfavour of respondent workman. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Mishra<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that no error is committed by Labour Court, Bhavnagar<br \/>\n\twhich would require interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering<br \/>\n\tsubmission made by both learned advocates and observation made by<br \/>\n\tLabour Court and evidence of witness of Corporation Shri Dhirajbhai<br \/>\n\tLaljibhai Makwana as referred above exh 84 and documents which have<br \/>\n\tbeen produced by respective parties.  The Labour Court has granted<br \/>\n\trelief of reinstatement inspite of knowing fully facts that<br \/>\n\tindustrial dispute has been raised after a period of twelve years,<br \/>\n\tfor that, no explanation has been given by workman that why dispute<br \/>\n\thas been raised after such long time.  Normally and ordinarily, such<br \/>\n\tbelated reference should not have to be entertained by Labour Court<br \/>\n\tunless it is justified delay by workman.  The right of reinstatement<br \/>\n\tis not entitled in case of breach of section 25 H of I. D. Act.  It<br \/>\n\tapplied with prospective effect not with retrospective effect.  For<br \/>\n\tbreach of section 25 H, workman is not entitled right of<br \/>\n\treinstatement from date of termination. But it is separate and<br \/>\n\tindependent right having prospective effect as per decision of<br \/>\n\tKarnataka High Court reported in 2009 (III) CLR 228.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tcontention raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is right that<br \/>\n\tafter a period of twelve years delay, without any justification,<br \/>\n\treference should not have to be entertained merely because of<br \/>\n\tsection 25 H of I. D. Act, 1947 is violated. Apart from that when<br \/>\n\tsection 25 H is violated then workman is entitled relief of<br \/>\n\treinstatement as re-employment but continuity of service which has<br \/>\n\tbeen granted, can not be granted in favour of respondent workman.<br \/>\n\tThe question of back wages also does not arise, which has been<br \/>\n\tgranted in favour of workman because it is not a case in respect to<br \/>\n\tbreach of section 25 F of I. D. Act.  Considering entire facts and<br \/>\n\tcircumstances of case and keeping in mind law, this being a case of<br \/>\n\thaving special facts and circumstance, it justified reinstatement<br \/>\n\tonly.  The direction which has been given by Labour Court with<br \/>\n\tcontinuity of service with 10% back wages and consequential benefits<br \/>\n\tare clear error committed by Labour Court which required<br \/>\n\tinterference by this Court, therefore, same is required to be<br \/>\n\tmodified as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>Apparently,<br \/>\n\tLabour Court has committed gross error in granting relief when<br \/>\n\tbreach of section 25 H is found from record, it was not case of<br \/>\n\tbreach of section 25 F of I. D. Act. Therefore, award passed by<br \/>\n\tLabour Court in reference no. 294\/2005 dated 25\/5\/2005 is required<br \/>\n\tto be modified.  Instead of reinstatement with continuity of service<br \/>\n\twith 10% back wages with consequential benefit, it is to be modified<br \/>\n\tto the effect that now respondent workman is entitled reinstatement<br \/>\n\tin original post and only entitle continuity of service from date of<br \/>\n\taward.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tit is directed to petitioner Corporation to reinstate respondent<br \/>\n\tworkman immediately while giving continuity of service from date of<br \/>\n\taward.  The aforesaid award has been modified to that effect only.<br \/>\n\tThe decision of this Court may not be treated as precedent in other<br \/>\n\tcases.  Accordingly, Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.  Ad<br \/>\n\tinterim relief, if any, stand vacated.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/11156\/2009 2\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11156 of 2009 ========================================================= BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus DHARMENDRA B VEGAD &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HS [&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-2749","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>Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-11T10:37:07+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-11T10:37:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1230,\"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\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-11T10:37:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-11T10:37:07+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-11T10:37:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010"},"wordCount":1230,"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\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010","name":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-11T10:37:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-dharmendra-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhavnagar vs Dharmendra on 21 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2749","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=2749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}