{"id":49969,"date":"2008-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-09T21:40:14","modified_gmt":"2016-07-09T16:10:14","slug":"junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/16582\/2007\t 9\/ 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. 16582 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nJUNAGADH\nAGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJANUBEN\nNARANBHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDG CHAUHAN for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR ASHOK YAGNIK for Respondent(s) : 1,\n \n\nMs. Nisha\nParikh, AGP for respondent No.2\nState \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 31\/07\/2008  \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tLeave<br \/>\nto amend the cause title.  Rule.  Mr. Ashok Yagnik, advocate<br \/>\nappearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. Nisha Parikh, AGP appearing for<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 waive service of Rule.  With the consent of the<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is<br \/>\ntaken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tBy<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner Junagadh Agricultural University has<br \/>\nchallenged order passed by Controlling Authority, Bhavnagar, under<br \/>\nthe Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the<br \/>\nAct&#8217;]. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 12.9.2006<br \/>\npassed by the appellate authority, Rajkot  under the said Act in<br \/>\nAppeals No. 36 to 38 of 2006, 40 of 2006, and 43 of 2006 to 49 of<br \/>\n2006.  By its order, the controlling authority came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the applicant workman was entitled for payment of Rs. 66,909\/-<br \/>\ntowards gratuity, whereas the University had made payment of Rs.<br \/>\n51,775\/- towards gratuity and that therefore there was shortfall of<br \/>\nRs. 15,134\/- (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;said shortfall&#8217;) hence the<br \/>\nsaid shortfall was required to be paid to the respondent. Upon<br \/>\narriving at such a conclusion, the controlling authority by aforesaid<br \/>\norder dated 5-4-2006 directed the petitioner university to make<br \/>\npayment of said shortfall to the respondent along with interest at<br \/>\nthe rate of 10% to be calculated from the date specified in the<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tAggrieved<br \/>\nby the said order, the petitioner University preferred appeal before<br \/>\nthe appellate authority and appellate authority by its order dated<br \/>\n12.9.2006 confirmed the order of appellate authority.  Against the<br \/>\naforesaid orders, the University is before this Court by way of<br \/>\ncaptioned petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>DG Chauhan appears for the petitioner University and Mr. Anand Yagnik<br \/>\nappears for the respondent.  I have heard the learned advocates for<br \/>\nrespective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Chauhan submitted that the petitioner University had already made<br \/>\npayment of the amount payable to the respondent towards gratuity and<br \/>\nnothing was due and payable inasmuch as the amount was calculated by<br \/>\nthe University in accordance with the provisions under the Act i.e.,<br \/>\nafter taking into account total length of service and the last drawn<br \/>\nsalary, however, the respondent approached the controlling authority,<br \/>\nand controlling authority arrived at a different conclusion and<br \/>\nordered the petitioner University to make good the shortfall on the<br \/>\nground that the petitioner University had made short payment.  Mr.<br \/>\nChauhan submitted that there is error apparent on the face of the<br \/>\norder by the controlling authority and controlling authority has<br \/>\nerroneously calculated the amount.  He has also submitted that being<br \/>\naggrieved by the said order of the controlling authority the<br \/>\npetitioner University approached the appellate authority, however the<br \/>\nappellate authority also committed the similar mistake instead of<br \/>\nsetting aside the order of the controlling authority and approving<br \/>\nthe payment made by the petitioner University, confirmed the order of<br \/>\ncontrolling authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Yagnik on the other hand submitted that the petitioner University had<br \/>\nmade short payment and had not calculated the amount payable towards<br \/>\ngratuity in accordance with provisions of the Act and settled legal<br \/>\nposition, whereas the controlling authority has rightly calculated<br \/>\nthe amount and there is no error in the order of the controlling<br \/>\nauthority or the appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the issue regarding applicability of the Act to the University<br \/>\nand the issue of entitlement of respondent for gratuity under the Act<br \/>\nare concerned, there is no dispute between the parties.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it is an admitted position in this petition that the<br \/>\nrespondent is entitled for gratuity under the provisions of the said<br \/>\nAct. When the factual aspects are examined, then it is noticed that<br \/>\nthere is no dispute between the parties so far as the relevant<br \/>\nfactual details are concerned inasmuch as the date of joining of the<br \/>\nrespondent, the date of superannuation of respondent, his last drawn<br \/>\nsalary, and length of service are not in dispute.  Thus, the only<br \/>\ndispute which arises in the petition is about the justifiability of<br \/>\nthe  quantum determined by the controlling authority on the basis of<br \/>\nthe said undisputed factual aspects as against the amount paid by the<br \/>\nUniversity by taking same facts into consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tSince,<br \/>\nthere was no dispute between the parties regarding the date of<br \/>\njoining and date of retirement, total length of service and the last<br \/>\ndrawn salary all that was required to be done by the controlling<br \/>\nauthority was to calculate the payable amount as per the provisions<br \/>\nunder the Act and in accordance with settled legal position.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tAs<br \/>\nper Section 4(2) in case of monthly rated employee, employer is<br \/>\nrequired to pay an employee [who has become eligible for gratuity as<br \/>\nper S. 4(1) r\/w. 2-A and 4(6)]  15 days&#8217; last drawn salary for every<br \/>\ncompleted year of service and in view of the explanation to<br \/>\nsub-section (2) of Section 4 (which has been inserted w.e.f.<br \/>\n1.10.1987 by Act 22 of 1987)  the last drawn monthly salary has to be<br \/>\ndivided by 26 and the quotient has to be multiplied by 15 so as to<br \/>\narrive at 15 days&#8217; salary.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThus,<br \/>\nin present case, so as to determine the amount payable towards<br \/>\ngratuity the petitioner&#8217;s last drawn monthly salary (since the<br \/>\npetitioner was monthly rated-employee) is required to be divided by<br \/>\n26 so as to arrive at per day (average) salary and then the amount so<br \/>\narrived at is required to be multiplied by 15 so as to arrive at the<br \/>\n15 days&#8217; salary. Then the total amount payable towards gratuity is to<br \/>\nbe arrived at by multiplying such rate i.e. 15 days&#8217;  salary by the<br \/>\ntotal number of years of service put in by the employee.  To put it<br \/>\ndifferently, the payable amount is to be arrived at by calculating in<br \/>\nfollowing manner;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)<br \/>\n Monthly salary  =<br \/>\nper day (average) salary <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">     26\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n<p>(ii)Per<br \/>\nday (average)salary X 15 X Total length of \t\t\t\t\t\t\t      service.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tWhen<br \/>\nthe order in question is examined in light of such settled legal<br \/>\nposition, it is noticed that the controlling authority has applied<br \/>\nthe said formula inasmuch as it has taken into account the last drawn<br \/>\nsalary of the respondent as Rs. 4,142\/- and has divided the same by<br \/>\n26, which would come to about Rs. 159\/- and the amount so arrived  at<br \/>\nhas been multiplied by 15, and then the resultant amount i.e. about<br \/>\nRs. 2,385\/- has been multiplied by total length of service of<br \/>\nconcerned employee i.e. 28 years.    Thus, so far as the question of<br \/>\nmethod and mode of calculation and arriving at payable amount is<br \/>\nconcerned, Controlling Authority has not committed any error.   In<br \/>\npresent case, there is no dispute that the total length of service of<br \/>\nthe petitioner is of 28 years.  Accordingly, the controlling<br \/>\nauthority had concluded that the petitioner was entitled for Rs.<br \/>\n15,134\/-. For the purpose of satisfaction about the correctness of<br \/>\nthe calculation, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to<br \/>\nrecalculate the amount in accordance with the aforesaid formula.<br \/>\nAfter calculating the same, the counsel for the petitioner also found<br \/>\nthat there is no error in the calculation made by the controlling<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthis view of the matter, it is clear that the controlling authority<br \/>\nhas calculated the payable amount by applying correct formula and has<br \/>\nnot committed any error in arriving at the final figure.  Therefore,<br \/>\nthe order of the controlling authority does not suffer from any error<br \/>\nof law or jurisdiction or even on factual aspects.  Hence, the<br \/>\nappellate authority was also justified in confirming the said order<br \/>\nof the controlling authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe overall consideration, the order of the Controlling Authority<br \/>\ndoes not suffer from any error and jurisdiction and the authority has<br \/>\ndetermined the payable amount in accordance with settled legal<br \/>\nposition and the Appellate Authority has also not committed any error<br \/>\nin law or jurisdiction or even of facts in confirming the order of<br \/>\nthe Controlling Authority.  Hence, there is no reason to interfere<br \/>\nwith two concurrent orders which do not suffer from any error of law<br \/>\nand no case for interference is made out and that therefore the<br \/>\npetition does not deserve to be entertained.  Hence the same is<br \/>\nrejected.  Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>[<br \/>\nK.M. Thaker, J. ]<\/p>\n<p>rmr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/16582\/2007 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16582 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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-49969","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>Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - 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\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-09T16:10:14+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-09T16:10:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"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\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-09T16:10:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 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":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - 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\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-09T16:10:14+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-09T16:10:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008"},"wordCount":1345,"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\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008","name":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-09T16:10:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junagadh-vs-januben-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Junagadh vs Januben on 31 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\/49969","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=49969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}