{"id":30225,"date":"2010-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-11T22:27:21","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T16:57:21","slug":"dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4866\/2009\t 5\/ 5\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. 4866 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 13715 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\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\nDAKSHIN\nGUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSATMAX\nDIESEL POWER &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSP HASURKAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR KETAN D SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nJK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set<br \/>\naside the order dated 03.03.2009 passed in Appeal No.7526\/2009,<br \/>\npreferred by respondent no.1 herein, by the appellate authority and<br \/>\nChief Electrical Inspector of the petitioners, whereby, the said<br \/>\nappeal was partly allowed and the supplementary bill issued by the<br \/>\npetitioners to respondent no.1 was quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0\tThe<br \/>\nfacts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are<br \/>\nas under;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner is an Electricity Company duly constituted under the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Gujarat Electricity Industry (Reorganization and<br \/>\nRegulation) Act, 2003. In<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tthe<br \/>\nyear 2004, respondent no.1 herein had applied to the<br \/>\npetitioner-Company for the grant of electricity supply to its<br \/>\nindustrial unit situated in Surat. On 24.12.2007 the electrical<br \/>\ninstallation in the industrial unit of respondent no.1 was checked by<br \/>\nthe inspecting squad of the petitioner-Company and on such<br \/>\ninspection, it was found that respondent no.1 was using electricity<br \/>\nsupply unauthorizedly for the purpose of running water pumps to draw<br \/>\nwater from underground and supply the same to different industrial<br \/>\nunits engaged in the process of textile industry.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tTherefore,<br \/>\na supplementary bill, u\/s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was<br \/>\nissued to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 submitted a representation<br \/>\nagainst the said supplementary bill issued by the petitioner-Company.<br \/>\nHowever, the said representation was rejected by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4\tAgainst<br \/>\nthe said order, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the<br \/>\nappellate authority of the petitioner-Company. The said appeal was<br \/>\npartly allowed vide the impugned order. Hence, this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted<br \/>\nthat on inspection of the electrical installation of respondent<br \/>\nno.1&#8217;s unit, it was found that respondent no.1 was using only one<br \/>\nwater pump, as against four water pumps and thereby, was<br \/>\nunauthorizedly using electricity supply for three water pumps.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel has further submitted that the appellate authority of the<br \/>\npetitioner-Company has misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nElectricity Act, 2003 more particularly, Section 126 therein and has,<br \/>\nthereby, committed serious error in quashing the supplementary bill<br \/>\nissued to respondent no.1. Hence, the impugned order passed by the<br \/>\nappellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent has submitted that the provisional as well<br \/>\nas the final bill were calculated as per the L.T.P.-1 category and<br \/>\nnot the commercial rate. The unit of respondent no.1 was not found to<br \/>\nbe using the electricity supply unauthorizedly and therefore, the<br \/>\nappellate authority has rightly quashed the supplementary bill issued<br \/>\nto respondent no.1. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned order passed by the appellate authority of the<br \/>\npetitioner-Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents<br \/>\non record. It is not in dispute that in the industrial unit of<br \/>\nrespondent no.1, L.T.P.-1 tariff has been installed and that the<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 was using submersible pump in the said electrical<br \/>\ninstallation. In the checking sheet prepared by the inspecting<br \/>\nauthority of the petitioner-Company, a bore-well was found to have<br \/>\nbeen constructed at about 100 ft. away from the industrial premise of<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 and that from the said bore-well water was being<br \/>\nutilized for industrial purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIt<br \/>\nappears from the record that while granting permission to respondent<br \/>\nno.1-unit to increase the load capacity, no inspection was carried<br \/>\nout on the basis of the Test Report, meaning thereby, that the<br \/>\nprocedure was not followed by the petitioner-Company and in spite of<br \/>\nthat a supplementary bill came to be issued to respondent no.1. The<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 was found to have been paying the bills towards the<br \/>\nconsumption arising from the usage of the pump installed in the said<br \/>\nbore-well regularly. Therefore, in my opinion, the supplementary bill<br \/>\nissued by the petitioner-Company is contrary to the provisions of law<br \/>\nand the appellate authority has rightly set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt<br \/>\nwould not be out of place to state that an endeavour was made by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners to point out that the appellate<br \/>\nauthority has misinterpreted the provision of Section 126 of the said<br \/>\nAct while passing the impugned order. However, it may be noted that<br \/>\nno contention qua the same was raised before the appellate authority<br \/>\nat the time of hearing of the appeal nor any Notice, as contemplated<br \/>\nu\/s.126(4) of the said Act, was issued to respondent no.1. Therefore,<br \/>\nit is not open to the petitioners to raise the said contention at<br \/>\nthis stage. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by<br \/>\nand the findings arrived at by the appellate authority in the<br \/>\nimpugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.<br \/>\nInterim relief stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.S.JHAVERI,<br \/>\nJ.]\t<\/p>\n<p> ORDER<br \/>\nIN CIVIL APPLICATION<\/p>\n<p>\tSince<br \/>\nthe main matter has been dismissed, this application is allowed. Rule<br \/>\nis made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.S.JHAVERI,<br \/>\nJ.]\t<\/p>\n<p>Pravin\/*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4866\/2009 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13715 of 2009 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2009 For [&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-30225","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>Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 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\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-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=\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T16:57:21+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T16:57:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":833,\"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\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T16:57:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 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":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 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\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T16:57:21+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T16:57:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010"},"wordCount":833,"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\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010","name":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T16:57:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshin-vs-satmax-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dakshin vs Satmax on 13 January, 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\/30225","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=30225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}