{"id":29446,"date":"2008-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-08T04:11:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T22:41:44","slug":"gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed<\/div>\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\nCA\/6998\/2008\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR JOINING PARTY No. 6998 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6337 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 6999 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6339 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 7001 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6338 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 7023 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4934 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 7022 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17569 of 2003\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nMINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPUSHPABEN\nP MAKHECHA & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n:\n \n\n CIVIL\nAPPLICATION Nos. 6998, 6999, 7001 & 7023\/2008. \nMR\nDIPEN C SHAH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MIHIR THAKORE Ld. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR\nRAKESH GUPTA with MR KUNAL NAIK for M\/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR SUNIT SHAH Ld. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 3 \u00fd  4.\n \n\n CIVIL\nAPPLICATION NO. 7022\/2008\n \n\n\nMR DIPEN C\nSHAH for petitioner(s)\n \n\nMR\nPM THAKKAR LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with Mr NAVIN PAHWA for respondent(s):\n1,\n \n\nMr\nSUNIT SHAH Ld. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondent(s):2,\n \n\nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 3 \u00fd  4\n \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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tAll
\nthese Civil Applications have been filed by the applicant to join the
\napplicant- Corporation  as party respondent in the main petitions.
\nSince the facts of all the applications are identical, they are heard
\ntogether and disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIt
\nis the case of the present applicant that the present applicant is a
\ncompany incorporated under Companies Act,  1956, a body corporate
\nhaving a common seal and perpectual succession. The applicant company
\nis a public sector undertaking of the Government of Gujarat,
\nincorporated to scientifically exploit the mines and mineral reserves
\nwithin the State of Gujarat and to conserve the mineral containing
\nlands and to achieve maximum production of minerals without
\ndisturbing or destroying the rich reserves in the underlying layers
\nof earth, thereby raising maximum revenue which is the object of the
\nPart IV of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt
\nis further the case of the applicant that respondent \u00fd  ori.
\nPetitioners are awarded mining lease for plant grade bauxite as well
\nas for non-plant grade bauxite, the said mining lease is only for the
\ncaptive consumption of the requirement of the opponent no. 1 \u00fd
\npetitioner and not for the purpose of export. That the Government is
\nnot bound to give permission for the export of the said mineral, and
\nis well within its discretion to permit public Corporation  to
\nprocure by sale or otherwise the said excavated plant grade bauxite
\nfor the purpose of value addition and for utilising the State
\nresources to realise the goals enshrined in the directive principles
\nof the State policy pertaining to utilisation of State resources in a
\nmanner which is likely to generate maximum employment opportunities
\nwithin the State.  The applicant states that the applicant has
\nentered into MOU dated 17.8.2007 and 17.7.2007 with Ashapura Minechem
\nLtd and Aluchem Inc, USA, respectively, ensuring long term supply of
\nNon-plant Grade Bauxite, with the intention to attract large
\nindustrial investments within the State. That it is the solemn
\nobligation of the applicant \u00fd  Corporation to oblige and perform the
\nconditions of contract with Aluchem Inc, USA which are establishing
\nindustry within the State of Gujarat and bringing about the
\ninvestment of Rs. 2500\/- crores. It is further stated that there is a
\nshortfall in availability of Non-plant Grade bauxite within the State
\nof Gujarat. It is submitted that applicant has promised supply of
\nNon-Plant Grade bauxite to Ashapura Minechem and Aluchem Inc., USA
\nfor the whole plant life under which a total supply of 127 Million
\nton will have to be ensured and the total reserves of Non-plant Grade
\nbauxite within the Gujarat State is approximately 129.48 Million Ton,
\nout of which, more than 40%, i.e., approximately 50 million ton
\nreserves are located in Jamnagar mines. It is submitted that ori.
\npetitioners have exported certain tons of Non-plant grade bauxite in
\nthe year 2007-2008. Hence, if the export of precious State resources
\nare made at this rate, it is very likely that all mines within
\nJamnagar will get exhausted frustrating the applicants contract with
\nAluchem Inc,USA and Ashapura Minechem. Moreover, permitting export of
\nminerals is major loss to public exchequer and hence it is desirable
\nthat State resources are employed in such a manner so as to attract
\ninvestment within the State. The applicant – Corporation intends to
\nsecure the reserves of non-plant grade bauxite within Gujarat for its
\nupcoming projects for which the State Government is likely to form
\nthe policy of preventing export at the cost of domestic social and
\neconomic development of State. So, the present applicant is likely to
\nprejudice its right as once the export is executed, the situation
\nwill be irreversible.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Dipen C. Shah for the applicant contended that it is
\nvery likely that any orders  which may be passed in the main
\npetitions may come in the way of the Government forming the policy
\nfor regulating export of non-plant grade bauxite and may be perceived
\nas an exception to policy of State ensuring that quantity of bauxite
\nmay first be made available to local industries, and after satisfying
\ntheir requirements at domestic level, only excess mineral should be
\nexported. It is further submitted that in such a contingency
\napplicant \u00fd  Corporation is likely to incur considerable loss in
\nfailing to honour its commitment under the contract on account of
\nscarcity of precious mineral like non-plant grade bauxite. It is
\nstated that the prayer in the petition seeking declaration that
\npetitioners can also export without permission of Government and that
\nGovernment has no right to impede the export of bauxite by
\npetitioners may cause serious prejudice to the applicant \u00fd
\ncorporation and therefore, the applicant may be joined as party
\nrespondent in all the main petitions.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt
\nis also contended by the learned advocate Mr Dipen C Shah for the
\napplicant that the applicant is necessary and proper party to the
\nsaid petitions and any order which may be passed in the said
\npetitions directing the State Government to grant necessary
\npermission to the petitioners to export or to decide any pending
\napplication of the petitioner would likely to affect the interest of
\nthe applicant \u00fd  Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Dipen C Shah learned advocate for the applicant has drawn the
\nattention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
\nrespondent no. 1 – ori. Petitioner, at page 11, and contended that
\nMoUs are not disputed and this gives right to  the present applicant
\nto be  joined as party respondent in the main petitions. He relied
\nupon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of   Fertilizer
\nCorporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri & Ors. vs. Union of
\nIndia and Ors,<\/a> reported in AIR 1981 SC p. 344.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tMr
\nMihir Thakore learned Senior Advocate for the respondent \u00fd  Ori.
\nPetitioner has contended that in the event of non-availability of
\nraw-material, serious consequences will arise. Even the Government
\nhas also prohibited the export of raw-material and the petitioner has
\nchallenged that order.  He has also drawn the attention of this court
\nto the Government Resolution dated 4.2.2005 at page nos. 19 and 20.
\nHe has further  submitted that the present applicant
\ncan prefer a petition. It is further argued by learned Senior Counsel
\nMr. Mihir Thakore that in the application itself, it is mentioned
\nthat  the applicant \u00fd  Corporation intends to secure the reserves of
\nnon-plant grade bauxite within Gujarat for its upcoming projects for
\nwhich the State Government is most likely to form the policy of
\npreventing export at the cost of domestic social and economic
\ndevelopment of State, but no project, till today, is established  and
\nthere is no such policy of the Government,  in existence. It is also
\nargued that the applicant has not produced anything on record to show
\nits rights on reserves of non-plant grade bauxite  and no plant is
\nestablished till today and everything is in air and the applicant has
\ncome before this Court only with  MOU and the said MOU is also not
\nexecuted with the  Government.  Mr Thakore has also read para-3 of
\nthe  memo of application and argued that applicant has entered into
\nMOU dated 17.8.2007 and 17.7.2007 with Ashapura Minechem Ltd and
\nAluchem Inc, USA. It is further argued that the Notification is under
\nchallenge. He has read the prayer made in this application and argued
\nthat he has challenged the order of Government and the present
\napplicant \u00fd  Corporation is not a relevant party as the petitioner
\nhas not prayed any relief against the present applicant \u00fd
\nCorporation and the application preferred by the applicant is not
\nbonafide and required to be dismissed. Mr. Thakore has relied upon
\nthe decision of the Apex Court in the case of  Ramesh Hirachand
\nKundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in (1992)2 SCC p. 524 and argued that the applicant
\nis not a proper party and it has no direct interest and writ is a
\nprivate writ  between  two parties and, therefore, the applicant has
\nno right to join as party \u00fd  respondent. He has fairly argued that
\nthe applicant can file a separate petition.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nCivil Application No. 7022\/2008 Mr. PM Thakkar learned Senior
\nAdvocate appeared for the respondent and    argued that the all mines
\nand minerals are controlled by the Central Government and it is
\nfalling under Schedule-II. He read Rule-22 of the Mines and Minerals
\n(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It is also contended by Mr.
\nThakkar that he has filed the  petition for the reasons that the
\nState Government has denied to collect ad hoc royalty  on minerals.
\nIt is also argued by Mr. Thakkar that during the pendency of the
\npetition, the applicant \u00fd  Corporation has filed this application
\nfor joining it as party respondent in the main petitions. Mr Thakkar
\nhas also contended that the respondent \u00fd  ori. Petitioner is a local
\nIndustrial Association and the present applicant has no concern with
\nit and paternal agency (State) is defending and opposing the present
\npetitions, yet the State Government is only a second agency and
\noriginal agency  is Central Government.  Mr. Thakkar submits that he
\nis adopting and  relying upon the contentions raised and submissions
\nmade by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Thakore.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tI
\nhave gone through the papers of all the civil applications and main
\npetitions as well as the citations relied upon. It is true that in
\nthe case of  Fertilizer Corporation  Kamgar Union vs. Union of
\nIndia,<\/a> reported in AIR 1981 SC p. 344, the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt, in para-48,  has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS48.\n<\/p>\n
If a citizen is no more than a way-farer or officous intervener
\nwithout any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the
\n660 million  people of this country, the door of the Court will not
\nbe ajar for him. But he belongs to an organisation which has special
\ninterest in the subject matter, if he has some concern deeper than
\nthat of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although
\nwhether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be
\nconsidered. I, therefore, take the view that the present petition
\nwould clearly have been permissible under Article 226.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
10.\tNo
\ndoubt, the said observation is binding to all subordinate Courts, but
\nso far as the  question of joining party is concerned, Civil
\nProcedure Code is a law and procedure of Civil Procedure Code  is
\nrequired to be followed. It is true that this is not a public
\ninterest litigation but it is filed by the private parties. It is
\ntrue that learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakore has relied on the
\njudgment of the Apex Court in the case of   Ramesh Hirachand
\nKundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors.<\/a>,
\nreported in (1992)2 SCC 524, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt has laid down a ratio that in the question of addition of
\nnecessary party, the Court has judicial discretion which it has to
\nexercise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
\nwhile exercising  discretion, the court can direct the plaintiff,
\nthough dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary
\nparty-defendant. Mr. Mihir Thakore and Mr PM Thakkar learned Seniour
\nAdvocates have argued that the present applicant is not a necessary
\nand proper party and, therefore,  court cannot use discretion in
\nconnection of addition of the necessary party in favour of the
\npresent applicant.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt
\nis true that the dispute is between the respondent \u00fd  ori.
\nPetitioner and State Government.  As per the provisions of Code of
\nCivil Procedure, it is always open for the petitioner to implead such
\na party as it deems fit and proper and when a party is not necessary
\nor proper party and  its presence is not necessary for determining
\nthe issue between the parties, then, such a party has no right to
\njoin itself as a party respondent in such type of proceedings. It
\nappears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents -ori. Petitioners that the present applicant is merely to
\nsee that the petition must be properly defended, but GMDC cannot be
\nheard in such type of matters when the State Government is already
\nthere.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tFrom
\nthe above discussion and observation, the question  as to whether a
\nperson should be joined to the petition or not  depends upon the
\nnature of the petition and averments made in the petition. From the
\ncontents of the Special Civil Applications, it appears that the
\npresent opponents (Ori. Petitioners) have not prayed any relief
\nagainst the present applicant \u00fd  GMDC. The applicant cannot be added
\nas party respondent merely because it would be incidently affected by
\nthe judgment and order. It is established by the opponents as well as
\napplicant that no prayer has been made against the present applicant
\nin the main petitions and it also appears that the applicant \u00fd
\nCorporation is neither a necessary nor proper party.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn
\nview of the above discussions, all these Civil Applications stand
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008 Bench: Z.K.Saiyed CA\/6998\/2008 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR JOINING PARTY No. 6998 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6337 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6999 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6339 […]<\/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-29446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 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\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-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=\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T22:41:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T22:41:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2136,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T22:41:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 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":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 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\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T22:41:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T22:41:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008"},"wordCount":2136,"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\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008","name":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T22:41:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-pushpaben-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Pushpaben on 7 July, 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\/29446","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=29446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}