{"id":45029,"date":"2010-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-11T23:56:36","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T18:26:36","slug":"veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\/1054\/2010\t 1\/ 9\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. 1054 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1055 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1057 of 2010\n \n\n  \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\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 ? Yes\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\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 ? Yes\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 ? No \n\t\t\t\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 ?         No \n\t\t\t\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 ?           No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nVEER\nNARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSATISHKUMAR\nRAMJIBHAI PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHARSHADRAY A DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMS MOXA THAKKAR,\nAGP for Respondent(s) : 2, \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.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\npetitioner-University has sought to challenge the judgment and orders
\nof the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, whereby the
\nrespondents-workmen are ordered to be reinstated with 75% back-wages
\non their original posts on
\ndaily wage and temporary basis but with continuity of service and all
\nconsequential and incidental benefits. The Tribunal has, in each of
\nthe elaborate impugned judgements, analyzed the facts and, after
\nappreciating the contentions of the petitioner arrived at findings of
\nfact to the effect that services of the respondent were terminated
\nwithout complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, even as their entry into service
\nappeared to be irregular, it was not found to be illegal and after
\ndischarge\/ discontinuation of the respondents, the University had
\nemployed many other employees in place of the respondents. It was
\nalso noticed that the respondents were not employed only for the
\npurpose of dealing with extra burden of office work during or around
\nthe examinations, but they were continued in service beyond the
\nperiod of examinations. The plea of contract of employment of the
\nrespondents being covered by the definition in Section 2 (oo)(bb) of
\nthe I.D.Act was rejected in absence of any contract of employment
\nstipulating any limitations.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tPressing
\nthe petitions for admission and injunction against the impugned
\norders, learned counsel,                   Mr. H.A.Dave, appearing
\nfor the petitioner, vehemently argued that the service conditions of
\nemployees of the petitioner were governed by the South Gujarat
\nUniversity Act, 1965 and adjudication of disputes between the
\nUniversity and its employees was exclusively governed by the Gujarat
\nUniversities Services Tribunal Act, 1983. He submitted that the
\napplication of aforesaid two State Legislations receiving accent of
\nthe President, excluded the application of provisions of Section 25F
\nor any other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore,
\nthe impugned orders based upon violation of provisions of Section 25F
\nof the I.D.Act were required to be quashed, according to his
\nsubmission. It was further submitted that even if the provisions of
\nI.D.Act were assumed to be applicable in the facts of the present
\ncases, the respondents being irregularly appointed temporary
\nemployees, they are not legally entitled to any relief resulting into
\nregularization of their irregular appointments. He relied upon the
\njudgements of this Court which were cited before the Tribunal and
\nwhich are distinguished in the impugned judgement.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThere
\nis no dispute about the facts that the respondents had completed more
\nthan one year of service and in the year preceding the termination of
\nservice they had worked for more than 240 days. All of them were
\ndischarged from service on 03.12.1999 and after their approaching the
\nlabour court, the cases had to be conducted before the Tribunal upon
\nthe petitioner raising the objection of jurisdiction of the labour
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn
\nthe legal aspect of the matter, relevant express provisions of the
\nGujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 7.
\n\tJurisdiction of Tribunal.-\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\tThe Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide
\n\tdisputes referred to in section 8, all suits and proceedings
\n\ttransferred to it under sub-section(2) of section 13 and appeals
\n\tmade under sub-section(3) of section 14.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\tWhere any order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or
\n\totherwise termination of service of a University employee is decided
\n\tby the Tribunal to be wrong, unlawful or otherwise unjustified, the
\n\tTribunal may pass an order directing that the University employee
\n\tshall be reinstated in service or, as the case may be, restored to
\n\tthe rank, which he held immediately before his dismissal, removal
\n\treduction in rank or otherwise termination of service by the
\n\tUniversity and the University shall forthwith comply with such
\n\tdirection.\n<\/p>\n
(3)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\tNotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
\n\tbeing in force, where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and
\n\tdecide a dispute as aforesaid, no other person, officer or authority
\n\tshall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such dispute and any
\n\tsuch dispute pending before any person, officer, or authority on the
\n\tappointed day shall, as soon as may be, be transferred to the
\n\tTribunal for its decision.\n<\/p>\n
(8)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tDispute to be decided by Tribunal.-\n<\/p>\n
\tWhere
\n\tthere is any dispute between the University and any University
\n\temployee, which is connected with the conditions of service of such
\n\tUniversity employee, the University or, as the case may be the
\n\tUniversity employee may make an application to the Tribunal for the
\n\tdecision of the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
It
\nis clear from the above provision that the Tribunal had exclusive
\njurisdiction to decide the dispute arising from the conditions of
\nservice or termination of service of the respondents. Even as the
\nTribunal has not referred to the provisions of Section 25J of the
\nI.D.Act, it may be pertinent to note the express provisions in the
\nI.D.Act, which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t 25J.\n<\/p>\n
Effect of Laws inconsistent with this Chapter.-\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tThe provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding
\nanything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including
\nstanding orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing
\nOrders) Act, 1946:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat where under the provisions of any other Act or rules, orders or
\nnotifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or any
\naward, contract of service or otherwise, a workman is entitled to
\nbenefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him
\nthan those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the workman
\nshall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in
\nrespect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in
\nrespect of other matters under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\tFor the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing
\ncontained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of
\nany other law for the time being in force in any State in so far as
\nthat law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes, but the
\nrights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they
\nrelate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance
\nwith the provisions of this Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn
\nview of the finding of the fact of the Tribunal that the respondents
\nhad completed 240 days of service in the year preceding their date of
\ntermination, it could not be disputed that the provision of Section
\n25F of the I.D.Act related to retrenchment applied in the facts of
\nthe present cases and the above provisions of Section 25J of the
\nI.D.Act with the clarification in sub-section (2) makes it absolutely
\nclear that despite the forum for settlement of dispute being not the
\none provided under the I.D.Act, the rights and liabilities of the
\nparties continued to be governed by the provisions of Chapter-VA, as
\nfar as they relate to lay off and retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tTherefore,
\nthe contention that the provision of Section 25F of the I.D.Act could
\nnot be applied in the facts of the present cases, is rejected. It is
\nalso clear from the provisions of Section 7 of the  Gujarat
\nUniversities Services Tribunal Act that the Tribunal is conferred
\nwith very wide jurisdiction and when it finds the termination of
\nservice of university employee to be wrong, unlawful or otherwise
\nunjustified, it has the jurisdiction to direct the University to
\nreinstate in service the employee concerned. It is not only when the
\nTribunal finds the termination to be illegal or in violation of any
\nparticular provision of law but even in cases where the termination
\nof service is found to be wrong or otherwise unjustified, the
\nTribunal is empowered to grant appropriate relief. Therefore, when in
\nthe facts of the present case Tribunal found the termination of
\nservices of the employees concerned to be unfair, insofar as other
\nemployees were subsequently employed and continued in service, the
\nimpugned order could not be faulted.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAs
\nrecently held by the Apex Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab
\nState Warehousing Corporation [2010 (1) SCALE 613], it is
\nsettled law that, for attracting the applicability of Section 25-G of
\nthe I.D.Act, the workman is not required to prove that he had worked
\nfor a period of 240 days during twelve calender months preceding the
\ntermination of his service and it is sufficient for him to plead and
\nprove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the
\nrule of ‘last come first go’ without any tangible reason. It is
\nfurther observed that, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
\n226 and\/or 227 of the Constitution in such matters, the High Courts
\nare duty bound to keep in mind that the I.D.Act and other similar
\nlegislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same
\nare required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in
\nthe preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part
\nIV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43A in
\nparticular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order
\nfor the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between
\nmen and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the
\ncommunity to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the
\nworkers get their dues. It is further observed that there has been a
\nvisible shift in the Courts approach in dealing with the cases
\ninvolving interpretation of social welfare legislations. The
\nattractive mantras of globalization and liberalization are fast
\nbecoming the raison d’etre of the judicial process and an impression
\nhas been created that the constitutional courts are no longer
\nsympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganized workers.
\nIn large number of such cases, relief has been denied to the
\nemployees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally
\nretrenched from service by creating by-lanes and side-lanes in the
\njurisprudence developed by the Court in three decades. The stock plea
\nraised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial
\nemployment\/engagement of the workman-employee was contarary to some
\nor the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put
\nunbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The
\nCourts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the
\naccountability of the wrong doer and indirectly punished the tiny
\nbeneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued
\nin the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by
\nhim may be the only source of his livelihood. It needs no emphasis
\nthat if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all
\nhis fundamental and constitutional rights and the freedoms enshrined
\nin the Constitution remain illusory.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\nTribunal has taken adequate care to reduce the back-wages and ordered
\nreinstatement of the respondents on the same daily wages and
\ntemporary basis so as not to confer any further right of permanency
\nor regularization in service. The judgement of this Court in Halvad
\nNagarpalika and anr. Vs. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai and ors.
\n[2003 (4) GLR 3229] has rightly been distinguished by the
\nTribunal on facts, insofar as the issues of regularization or
\ndirection to make the employees permanent do not arise in the present
\ncases. Since no jurisdictional error or any other error apparent on
\nthe face of the record could be pointed out from the impugned
\njudgement, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the
\norders in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction either under
\nArticle 227 or Article 226 of the Constitution, so as to reverse the
\nimpugned orders made in judicious exercise of the discretion
\nconferred upon the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitions are summarily
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLearned
\ncounsel, Mr. H.A.Dave at last sought clarification to the effect that
\nthe petitioner would be at liberty to terminate services of the
\nrespondent in accordance with law after implementation of the
\nimpugned orders. Such clarification is, however, not required as
\nthere cannot be any injunction against termination of service in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
(D.H.Waghela,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
Jyoti<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1054\/2010 1\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1054 of 2010 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1055 of 2010 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1057 of 2010 For […]<\/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-45029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVeer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - 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\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T18:26:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T18:26:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1978,\"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\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T18:26:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 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":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - 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\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T18:26:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T18:26:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010"},"wordCount":1978,"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\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010","name":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T18:26:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veer-vs-satishkumar-on-15-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Veer vs Satishkumar on 15 February, 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\/45029","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=45029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}