{"id":28800,"date":"2008-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-02T08:59:27","modified_gmt":"2017-01-02T03:29:27","slug":"reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: D.A.Mehta And Devani, Harsha Devani<\/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\/531\/2008\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 531 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA  \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\n \n\nRELIANCE\nCOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJUNAGADH\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE with MR.AMAR N BHATT for\nPetitioner \nMR HS MUNSHAW for\nRespondents \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 D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n
By
\n\tthis petition, the petitioner seeks the following substantive
\n\treliefs :\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS[7]\t\tThe
\npetitioner therefore prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased
\nto :\n<\/p>\n
[A]\t\tIssue
\nan appropriate writ to quash and set aside the attachment warrant
\ndated 10\/1\/2008 at Annexure \u00fdSA\u00fd\u00fd hereto issued by the respondent
\nNo.1 herein and quash and set aside the letters of the respondents
\ndated 22\/10\/2007 (Copy at Annexure \u00fdSA\u00fd\u00fd hereto), 21\/11\/2007 (Copy
\nat Annexure \u00fdSE\u00fd\u00fd hereto) and 10\/12\/2007 (Copy at Annexure \u00fdSF\u00fd\u00fd
\nhereto).\n<\/p>\n
[AA]\t\tIssue
\nan appropriate writ to command the respondents to place on record
\nResolution No.63 dated 30\/8\/2007 and Administrative Order No.248
\ndated 11\/9\/2007 and thereafter quash and set aside the same in so far
\nas they seek to charge permission fees, administrative penalty and
\nannual rent from the cellular\/mobile service provider company and
\ndeclare that the said Resolution and the Administrative Order are
\nillegal and void.\n<\/p>\n
[AAA]\tIssue
\nan appropriate writ to quash and set aside the demand raised by the
\nrespondents for annual rent, permission fees and administrative
\npenalty to the tune of Rs.13,99,000\/- from the petitioner as per the
\norder dated 18\/1\/08, and direct the respondents to refund an amount
\nof Rs.1,40,000\/- collected from the petitioner on 24\/12\/2007.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner, a Company, is engaged in the business of
\n\ttelecommunications.  For the purpose of providing mobile
\n\t\/telecommunication service to its customers\/subscribers, the
\n\tpetitioner is required to have certain Base Trans Receiver Station
\n\tInstallations which are popularly known as Mobile Towers.  For
\n\tsetting up such Mobile Towers, the petitioner enters into agreements
\n\twith private property owners and thereafter, applies for permission
\n\tfrom the local authorities to place tower\/s in the said property.
\n\tThe Mobile Towers are placed on structures, either on the ground
\n\tfloor or on the terraces of the buildings.  The Poles are sometimes
\n\tplaced on high-rise buildings.  In Junagadh city, the petitioner has
\n\tsix ground base\/terrace base towers and two terrace base poles
\n\tthrough which the petitioner provides telecommunication service to
\n\tits subscribers in the city of Junagadh and its nearby areas. Except
\n\tfor one tower base pole, the respondent No.1 has granted permission
\n\tfor placing the towers on private properties and one ground
\n\tbase\/terrace base tower, for which the procedure for permission is
\n\tgoing on, and the application made by the petitioner for such
\n\tpermission is pending.\n<\/p>\n
By
\n\tcommunication dated 22.10.2007, the respondent No.1 informed the
\n\tpetitioner that the General Body of the respondent No.1 had passed a
\n\tresolution being Resolution No.63 on 30th August, 2007
\n\twhich was followed by an administrative order dated 11th
\n\tSeptember, 2007 whereby the petitioner was required to pay a total
\n\tamount of Rs.8,32,000\/- towards permission fees\/administrative
\n\tpenalty and annual rent for its ground base\/terrace base towers and
\n\tRs.5,67,000\/- for its terrace base poles and called upon the
\n\tpetitioner to make payment within seven days thereof. The demand for
\n\tannual rent included the annual rent for the years 2005-06 and
\n\t2006-07 also. The petitioner sent a reply to the aforesaid
\n\tcommunication on 27.10.2007. The respondent No.1 once again
\n\treiterated the aforesaid demand vide letter dated 21.12.2007. Vide
\n\tcommunication dated 10.12.2007, the petitioner was informed that the
\n\trespondent No.1 was authorised to take decision regarding penalty
\n\tand fees and was, accordingly, called upon to make payment.
\n\tThereafter on 11.1.2008 the respondent No.1 issued an attachment
\n\twarrant under Rule 42 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation
\n\tTaxation Rules directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding
\n\tamount of Rs.13,99,000\/- within seven days of the receipt of the
\n\tnotice, failing which the movable property of the petitioner would
\n\tbe attached. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the
\n\trespondents, the petitioner has moved the present petition praying
\n\tfor the reliefs noted hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
Heard,
\n\tS.N. Soparkar learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Amar N. Bhatt learned
\n\tAdvocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned Advocate
\n\tfor the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Senior Advocate submitted that the respondent No.1 is
\n\tempowered to collect tax only as provided under the provisions of
\n\tthe Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (BPMC Act).
\n\tReferring to the provision of Section 127 of the BPMC Act, it was
\n\tfurther pointed out that the tax sought to be levied does not fall
\n\twithin any of the categories enumerated thereunder.  Attention was
\n\talso drawn to the provisions of Chapter XXII of the BPMC Act, which
\n\tprovides for \u00fdSLicences and Permits\u00fd\u00fd.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was pointed out that Chapter XXII consists of nine parts. Part I
\n\tto VIII make provision for different categories of licences viz. (I)
\n\tLicensing for Surveyors, Architects or Engineers etc., (II) Trade
\n\tlicences and other licences for keeping animals etc., (III) Licences
\n\tfor sale in municipal markets, (IV) Licences for private markets,
\n\t(V) Licences for sale of Articles of Food outside of Markets, (VI)
\n\tLicensing for Butchers etc. (VII) Licences for diary products,
\n\t(VIII) Licences for hawking, etc. whereas Part IX contains general
\n\tprovisions regarding Licences and Permits. Thus Part IX makes
\n\tprovision regarding grant, suspension or revocation of licences and
\n\tlevy of fees etc. in respect of the matters specified under Part I
\n\tto VIII. Part I to VIII do not envisage obtaining licence under the
\n\tAct for the purpose of putting up Mobile Towers or poles.  Drawing
\n\tattention to the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except
\n\tby authority of law, it was submitted that in absence of any
\n\tstatutory provision the levy of permission fees was violative of
\n\tArticle 265 of the Constitution. In support of his submissions, the
\n\tlearned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
\n\tCourt in the case of Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market
\n\tCommittee and another v. Hindustan Lever Limited and others,
\n\t2008 (5) SCC 575 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the
\n\tcase of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar
\n\tJayantikumar Pasawala & Ors.,<\/a> 1993 (1) GLR 655 for the
\n\tproposition that in absence of express provision a delegated
\n\tauthority cannot impose tax or fee. Such power of imposition of tax
\n\tor fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no
\n\tscope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\twas further submitted that the petitioner was already paying taxes
\n\tunder the BPMC Act by treating the structure as a building and that
\n\tthere is no provision under the Act for grant of licence in
\n\tconnection with putting up Mobile Towers or poles. It was stated
\n\tthat insofar as municipal taxes are concerned, the same are being
\n\tregularly paid. As regards levy of fees, it was submitted that it is
\n\tsettled legal position that if no service is being rendered, no fee
\n\tcould be levied. On the principle of quid pro quo fees cannot
\n\tbe levied as no service is provided by the Corporation. It was
\n\tsubmitted that assuming that the respondents had the authority to
\n\tlevy fees, the same should be commensurate with the service being
\n\trendered. That fees cannot be levied in such a manner so as to cause
\n\tunjust enrichment in favour of the State. It was, accordingly,
\n\tsubmitted that the respondents had no power to levy such fees,
\n\tpenalty or annual rent. That nothing had been brought on record to
\n\tshow as to in exercise of which power such fees, penalty and annual
\n\trent were sought to be levied. It was pointed out that the Mobile
\n\tTowers\/poles were set up on private properties, hence the respondent
\n\tNo.1 had no right or authority to charge annual rent in respect of
\n\tsuch property. It was contended that retrospective recovery of
\n\tpermission fees and administrative penalty was not permissible under
\n\tlaw. Drawing attention to the demand notices, it was pointed out
\n\tthat the annual rent was sought to be recovered with retrospective
\n\teffect for several years prior to the passing of the resolution in
\n\tquestion. It was submitted that in any case such levy cannot be
\n\tretrospective in effect.  It was accordingly urged that the impugned
\n\tResolution being without any authority of law deserves to be quashed
\n\tand set aside.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned Advocate for the respondents
\n\tvehemently opposed the petition. It was submitted that, prior to
\n\tdetermining it\u00fd”s policy on the issue of collection of installation
\n\tfees and yearly permission fees for such towers, the respondent No.1
\n\thad undertaken a study of the existing policies of Rajkot Municipal
\n\tCorporation, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Jamnagar Municipal
\n\tCorporation and had thereafter formulated its policy for levying
\n\tsuch fees as well as penalty in case of violation of the provisions
\n\tof all the Acts and the General Development Controlling Regulation
\n\t(GDCR). It was submitted that the respondent No.1 had followed the
\n\tprovisions of section 386(2) of the BPMC Act for fixation of such
\n\tfees and a proposal dated 7.12.2006 had been forwarded to the
\n\tSecretary of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation for placing the
\n\tmatter before the Standing Committee, which was initially turned
\n\tdown, but later on a Resolution came to be passed on 10.7.2007
\n\tapproving the said proposal. Subsequently,  the General Body of the
\n\trespondent No.1, vide the impugned Resolution dated 30.8.2007 gave
\n\tits approval to the resolution passed by the Standing Committee.  A
\n\tperusal of the said Resolution would show that the same was passed
\n\tto collect installation charges, yearly permission fees and penalty.
\n\tIt was submitted that due procedure has been followed as laid down
\n\tunder the provisions of the BPMC Act. That subsequently on the basis
\n\tof the rates determined by the respondent No.1, demand notice was
\n\tissued to the petitioner on the issue of payment of fees as well as
\n\tpenalty, and the petitioner was called upon to supply necessary
\n\tdetails. However, despite issuance of notices, the petitioner failed
\n\tto fulfill necessary conditions and requirements, hence the
\n\tpetitioner was held liable to pay installation fee, yearly
\n\tpermission fee and penalty as determined by the authority. It was
\n\taccordingly submitted that the action taken by the respondents was
\n\tjust, legal and proper and in consonance with the provisions of the
\n\tBPMC Act and as such did not call for any intervention by this
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tis apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the challenge in the
\n\tpetition is to the attachment warrant under Rule 42 of the Rules as
\n\twell as notices dated 22.10.2007 and 14.12.2007 as well as the
\n\tResolution dated 30.8.2007 and administrative order dated 11.9.2007
\n\twhich form the basis of the aforesaid notices and attachment
\n\twarrant. Hence, the core issue that arises for consideration is as
\n\tto the legality and validity of the resolution dated 30.8.2007.\n<\/p>\n
A
\n\tperusal of the resolution dated 30.8.2007 shows that by the said
\n\tresolution the General Board of the respondent No.1 has approved of
\n\tthe resolution dated 10.7.2007 of the Standing Committee for
\n\tdetermination of permission fees, annual rent and penalty. Hence it
\n\twould be necessary to refer to the contents of the resolution dated
\n\t10.7.2007 passed by the Standing Committee of the respondent No.1.
\n\tBy the said resolution the Standing Committee has given its approval
\n\tto the proposal made by the Commissioner in respect of the necessary
\n\tdocuments for setting up base transmission tower\/pole within limits
\n\tof the Junagadh Municipal Corporation, permission fees, annual rent
\n\tand penalty. Moreover in case of those towers which have been put up
\n\tin an illegal manner and in case of those terrace towers in respect
\n\tof which permission is sought for in future, in each case permission
\n\tshall be granted only upon production of certificate of an architect
\n\tregistered with the Corporation giving a clear opinion in writing
\n\tthat technically as well as in relation to FSI, no problem shall be
\n\tcaused to the structure of the building on account of the mobile
\n\ttower.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe facts of the present case, we are concerned with the first part
\n\tof the resolution, which provides for collection of permission fees,
\n\tannual rent and penalty. The case of the respondents is that the
\n\timpugned resolution has been passed in exercise of powers under
\n\tsection 386(2) of the BPMC Act. Section 386 of the BPMC Act as is
\n\trelevant for the present purpose reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS386.\n<\/p>\n
(1) Whenever it is provided by or under this Act that a licence or a
\nwritten permission may be given for any purpose, such licence or
\nwritten permission shall specify the period for which, and the
\nrestrictions and conditions subject to which, the same is granted and
\nthe date by which an application for the renewal of the same shall be
\nmade and shall be given under the signature of the Commissioner or a
\nmunicipal officer empowered under section 69 to grant the same.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
Except as may otherwise be provided by or under this Act, for every
\nsuch licence or written permission a fee may be charged at such rate
\nas shall from time to time be fixed by the Commissioner, with the
\nsanction of the Corporation.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
On
\n\ta bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is apparent that the
\n\tCorporation is empowered to determine the rates of fees for such
\n\tlicence or written permission only in those cases where the Act
\n\tprovides that a licence or a written permission may be given for any
\n\tpurpose. Thus, the purpose for which licence or written permission
\n\tmay be given is required to be specified under the BPMC Act, and it
\n\tis only in case of such licence or written permission that the
\n\tCorporation is empowered to determine the rates of fees. A perusal
\n\tof the provisions of the BPMC Act shows that provision for \u00fdSLicences
\n\tand Permits\u00fd\u00fd is made under Chapter XXII and specific categories of
\n\tcases are enumerated thereunder in Part I to VIII of the said
\n\tChapter, which have been referred to hereinabove in detail. A
\n\tperusal of the said categories shows that the same do not include
\n\tlicences or permits in respect of Mobile Towers. The learned
\n\tAdvocate for the respondents is not in a position to point out any
\n\tother provision of the Act, which makes provision for licences or
\n\tpermits in relation to Mobile Towers so as to attract the provisions
\n\tof sub-section (2) of section 386 of the BPMC Act. In the
\n\tcircumstances, in absence of any statutory provision permitting the
\n\trespondents to impose permission fees in respect of Mobile Towers,
\n\tthe levy of permission fees is without authority of law and as such
\n\tis violative of Article 265 of the Constitution and cannot be
\n\tsustained. This view gets support from the decision of the Supreme
\n\tCourt in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v.
\n\tSharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawala & others<\/a> (supra)
\n\twherein the Court while dealing with the validity of levy of
\n\tdevelopment fee under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
\n\tDevelopment Act, 1976, held that in a fiscal matter, in absence of
\n\texpress provision, a delegated authority is not competent to impose
\n\ttax or fee. In the view of the Court, such power of imposition of
\n\ttax and\/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and
\n\tthere is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or
\n\tfee. The delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters
\n\tof the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be
\n\tproper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of
\n\tincidental or ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal
\n\tpower.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards determination of annual rent, the source of powers according
\n\tto the respondents is section 386(2) of the BPMC Act. From the
\n\tlanguage employed in the said provision it is clear that the same
\n\tempowers the Commissioner to determine the rate of fees for licences
\n\tor written permissions. The same nowhere envisages the determination
\n\tof annual rent. Besides, undisputedly, the towers\/bases\/poles are
\n\tset up on private properties, hence, the respondent No.1 has no
\n\tright or authority to charge annual rent in respect of private
\n\tproperty. In the circumstances, the levy of annual rent is also bad
\n\tin law.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas administrative penalty is concerned, the learned Advocate for the
\n\trespondents is not in a position to point out any provision of law
\n\tthat permits the respondents to impose such penalty. It is settled
\n\tlegal position that in absence of any statutory provisions for
\n\timposition of penalty, no penalty can be imposed. In the
\n\tcircumstances, merely by virtue of a resolution passed by the
\n\trespondent No.1, administrative penalty could not have been imposed,
\n\tthat too without first enacting any provisions as to under what
\n\tcircumstances such penalty could be imposed. In other words without
\n\tspecifying the default, which would entail the imposition of penalty
\n\tno penalty could have been imposed. Hence, the imposition of
\n\tadministrative penalty being without any authority of law cannot be
\n\tsustained.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the impugned resolution insofar as it
\n\tprovides for determination of permission fees, annual rent and
\n\tpenalty, deserves to be set aside. Consequently the demand notices
\n\tand attachment warrant based upon the said resolution must suffer
\n\tfrom the same fate.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The
\n\timpugned Resolution No.63 dated 30th August, 2007 passed
\n\tby the respondent No.1 insofar as it provides for determination of
\n\tpermission fees, annual rent and administrative penalty as well as
\n\tAdministrative Order No.248 dated 11.9.2007 are hereby quashed and
\n\tset aside. Consequently the impugned demand notices and attachment
\n\twarrant are also quashed and set aside. As a necessary corollary,
\n\tthe petitioner would be entitled to refund of any amount recovered
\n\tunder the impugned demand notices.  Rule is made absolute
\n\taccordingly, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[D.A.MEHTA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008 Bench: D.A.Mehta And Devani, Harsha Devani SCA\/531\/2008 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 531 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-28800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nReliance vs Junagadh on 9 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\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-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=\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-02T03:29:27+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-02T03:29:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2906,\"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\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-02T03:29:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 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":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 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\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-02T03:29:27+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-02T03:29:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008"},"wordCount":2906,"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\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008","name":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-02T03:29:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reliance-vs-junagadh-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reliance vs Junagadh on 9 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\/28800","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=28800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}