{"id":30148,"date":"2010-12-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-16T11:18:44","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T05:48:44","slug":"rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/16063\/2006\t 8\/ 8\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. 16063 of 2006\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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\nRAMESHBHAI\nDUNGARBHAI PATEL - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAFATLAL\nINDUSTRIES LTD. (TEXTILE DIVISION) &amp; 2 - Respondents\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPC MASTER for Petitioner \nMR UDAY JOSHI FOR M\/S\nTRIVEDI &amp; GUPTA for Respondent: 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondents\n: 2 - 3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 24\/06\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court,<br \/>\n\tNavsari dated 24.9.2004 allowing the application Exh.13 in T.<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 1 of 2002 of respondent Mill-Company for postponing<br \/>\n\tthe proceedings of T-Application No. 1 of 2002 in view of the<br \/>\n\tproceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial<br \/>\n\tReconstruction (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;BIFR&#8217; for short) and<br \/>\n\torder dated 6.5.2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Surat in<br \/>\n\tRevision Application No. (I.C) No. 25 of 2004, wherein, the<br \/>\n\taforesaid order was assailed by the workman and which had been<br \/>\n\trejected by the Industrial Court confirming the order dated<br \/>\n\t24.9.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFacts<br \/>\n\tin brief deserve to be set out as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tworkman, at the relevant time was serving in the respondent no. 1<br \/>\n\tMill Company as a permanent employee from 1.6.1975 in a stamping<br \/>\n\tdepartment as a Clerk and his last drawn salary was Rs.4462\/-. The<br \/>\n\tMill-Company had without giving notice of change under Section 42 of<br \/>\n\tthe BIR Act, closed down the factory from 22.2.2000 to 4.6.2000 and<br \/>\n\tabout 2500 employees were made jobless. The Mill-Company made<br \/>\n\tagreement with the representation union- Majoor Mahajan Mandal.<br \/>\n\tThough it was required to be noted that the respondent nos. 2 and 3<br \/>\n\thad created a new representative in the Company for the employees<br \/>\n\twithout forming any Union and entered into a settlement under<br \/>\n\tSection 2-P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 6.5.2000. As the<br \/>\n\tsaid settlement was against the interest of the representative<br \/>\n\temployees, the said settlement was not signed by the representative<br \/>\n\tUnion and one of the conditions in the said settlement was that<br \/>\n\tthose employees will be taken back in the service only who signs the<br \/>\n\tundertaking for resuming the duty. The petitioner approached for<br \/>\n\tduty but he was not allowed to resume duties. The petitioner was<br \/>\n\tissued chargesheet along with other employees for not resuming<br \/>\n\tduties. The chargesheet culminated into inquiry proceedings. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner ultimately issued approach letter to the Company. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was dismissed on   8.11.2001. The petitioner filed<br \/>\n\tT-Application No. 1 of 2001, wherein, an application Exh.13 came to<br \/>\n\tbe filed by the Mill-Company respondent for staying the further<br \/>\n\tproceedings in view of the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies<br \/>\n\t(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n\t SICA  for short) as proceedings before BIFR was pending. The<br \/>\n\tCivil Application came to be allowed as stated hereinabove vide<br \/>\n\torder dated 24.9.2004, which the petitioner assailed in Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication (I.C) No. 25 of 2004, which was rejected by the<br \/>\n\tIndustrial Court vide order dated 6.5.2006. Both these orders are<br \/>\n\tchallenged in this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt (Coram: H.K.Rathod, J.) vide its order dated 02.08.2006 issued<br \/>\n\tRule in the matter and it was ordered to be expedited. Accordingly,<br \/>\n\tthis matter is listed before this Court for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tJoshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended<br \/>\n\tthat in the given facts and circumstances, the provisions of Section<br \/>\n\t22 of SICA have rightly been made applicable for suspending the<br \/>\n\tproceedings of T-Application as the Company is closed since long.<br \/>\n\tThe proceedings if permitted, would have caused undue hardship,<br \/>\n\twhich would go contrary to spirit and later of SICA itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tJoshi, learned advocate has fairly submitted that in Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 7225 of 2007 filed by Bhanubhai Ranchhodbhai Parmar<br \/>\n\t&amp; 10 others Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. decided on 12.3.2009,<br \/>\n\tthis Court has held that the proceedings of T-Application could not<br \/>\n\thave been stayed or postponed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\n\tCourt has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and<br \/>\n\tperused the papers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner was<br \/>\n\tserving with the respondent Mill-Company and is without any<br \/>\n\temployment\/job since 8.11.2001. As his services came to be<br \/>\n\tterminated by the respondent Company, the petitioner raised<br \/>\n\tIndustrial Disputes under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act by<br \/>\n\tsubmitting T-Application.  It appears that the respondent Company<br \/>\n\tapproached the Board under the provisions  of SICA Act declaring<br \/>\n\tthem as Sick Undertaking, wherein the Scheme has been framed for<br \/>\n\trehabilitation of the respondent Company. It appears that the<br \/>\n\tT-Application is of 2002 and is  still pending and  the respondent<br \/>\n\tCompany submitted application before the competent Court for staying<br \/>\n\tthe proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Labour Court,<br \/>\n\tNavsari. The learned Judge of the Labour Court vide order dtd.<br \/>\n\t24.9.2004 allowed the said Application. That being aggrieved by and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with the order passed by the Labour Court dtd.<br \/>\n\t24.9.2004, the petitioner preferred Revision Application (I.C.) No.<br \/>\n\t25 of 2004  and the learned Member of the Industrial Court by the<br \/>\n\timpugned order has dismissed the said revision application  by<br \/>\n\tconfirming the order passed by the Labour Court, Navsari dtd.<br \/>\n\t24.9.2004 below Exh. 13 in T-Application No.1 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis mainly contended on behalf of the respondent Company that in view<br \/>\n\tof the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR the proceedings<br \/>\n\tbefore the Labour Court initiated by the petitioner by way of<br \/>\n\tT-Application is to be quashed and set aside  and\/or it is to be<br \/>\n\tsuspended till the consent from the BIFR is obtained. It is also<br \/>\n\trequired to be noted that the bar under sec.22 of the SICA Act would<br \/>\n\tbe applicable only bat the time when there will be financial<br \/>\n\timplication and Award is sought to be implemented\/executed having<br \/>\n\tfinancial implications. In the meantime, the proceedings may go on<br \/>\n\tand only at the time of execution of the Award having financial<br \/>\n\timplications, bar under sec.22 of the SICA Act can be made<br \/>\n\tapplicable and at that stage the petitioner\/ employee may be<br \/>\n\tdirected to obtain consent from the BIFR.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/218898\/\">Jay Engineering Works Ltd.  vs. Industry<br \/>\n\tFacilitation Council &amp; Anr.,<\/a> reported in AIR 2006 SC 3252,<br \/>\n\twhile considering the Award under Arbitration Act vis-a-vis<br \/>\n\tsec.20 of the SICA Act, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has observed that<br \/>\n\tadjudicatory process on making an Award under the Act of  1993 may<br \/>\n\tnot come within the purview of 1985 Act but once an Award is made to<br \/>\n\tbe executed shall come into play.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited Vs. Talegaon Dabhade<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Council &amp; Ors, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 640, while<br \/>\n\tconsidering sec.22 of the SICA Act, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<br \/>\n\tobserved that the effect of sec.22 is to be considered only when<br \/>\n\tthere is a demand for recovery and the question of recovery would<br \/>\n\tarise only when there is quantified demand on assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the two decisions of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, the<br \/>\n\tadjudication  by the Labour Court in the aforesaid T-Applications<br \/>\n\tcan not be stayed and the proceedings cannot be suspended. As<br \/>\n\tobserved by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court only after adjudication and<br \/>\n\tthe Award is declared, the effect of sec.22 of the SICA Act can be<br \/>\n\tconsidered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the judgment of this Court passed in Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 7225 of 2007, wherein, the facts are almost<br \/>\n\tidentical, so far law point is concerned, it can well be said that<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order cannot be said to be sustainable in eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above the impugned judgment and order passed by the<br \/>\n\tIndustrial  Court in suspending the proceedings of the T-Application<br \/>\n\tfiled by the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court is required to be directed to proceed further with the<br \/>\n\tadjudication of the T-Application and after the Judgment  is<br \/>\n\tdeclared,  the effect of sec.22 of the SICA Act can be considered.<br \/>\n\tHowever, there is no justification to suspend the proceedings before<br \/>\n\tthe Labour Court which have been initiated long back and to stay the<br \/>\n\tfurther proceedings and adjudication thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above, the present petition succeeds. The impugned order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Industrial Court, Surat in Revision Application (I.C)<br \/>\n\tNo.25 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. Let the Labour Court,<br \/>\n\tNavsari adjudicate upon  the T-Application submitted  by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and thereafter when any Judgment is declared by the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court, Navsari, the effect of sec.22 of the SICA Act can be<br \/>\n\tconsidered. The Labour Court, Navsari is hereby directed to decide<br \/>\n\tand dispose of the T-Application No. 1 of 2002 in  accordance with<br \/>\n\tlaw and on merits at the earliest but not later than six months from<br \/>\n\tthe date of the receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute<br \/>\n\tto the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case,<br \/>\n\tthere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>pallav<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/16063\/2006 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16063 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-30148","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>Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 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\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-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=\"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-16T05:48:44+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T05:48:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1390,\"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\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T05:48:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 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":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 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\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-16T05:48:44+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T05:48:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010"},"wordCount":1390,"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\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010","name":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T05:48:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-mafatlal-on-27-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshbhai vs Mafatlal on 27 December, 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\/30148","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=30148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}