{"id":56491,"date":"2010-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-16T00:56:19","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T19:26:19","slug":"polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\/7811\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \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. 7811 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPOLITE\nPROCESSORS - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPASCHIM\nGUJARAT VIJ CO LTD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nHETVI H SANCHETI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, petitioner has made prayer in Para 7 to direct the<br \/>\nrespondent to restore electricity connection of petitioner<br \/>\nCustomer No.33201\/02914\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms. Sancheti submitted that for reconnection, specific<br \/>\nrequest in writing has been made to respondent, Page 37 dated 10th<br \/>\nMay 2010. She submitted that in response to aforesaid application,<br \/>\nanswer is given by respondent on 28th<br \/>\nMay 2010 that amount cannot be accepted with objection by respondent,<br \/>\nbecause, while handing over the cheque, the amount is not mentioned<br \/>\nby petitioner, therefore, blank cheque cannot be accepted by<br \/>\nelectricity company.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that petitioner is having two different<br \/>\nelectricity connections and in both cases, theft has been committed<br \/>\nand for that, proceedings have been initiated by respondent<br \/>\nelectricity company against present petitioner. She submitted that<br \/>\nunless and until the amount, which has been found to be due in<br \/>\nrespect to theft of electricity committed by petitioner, is not paid<br \/>\nby petitioner and undertaking is not given by petitioner for the<br \/>\nsame, question of reconnection of electricity does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Sancheti submitted that petitioner has not received any<br \/>\nsupplementary bill from respondent. Apart from that, considering<br \/>\ncomplaint means FIR filed against present petitioner, Page 15, dated<br \/>\n19th<br \/>\nApril 2010, it is a case of theft of electricity committed by<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\nthat, it is open for petitioner to approach Special Court under<br \/>\nSection 153 of Electricity Act, 2003 and direct petition to this<br \/>\nCourt for reconnection of electricity cannot be entertained by this<br \/>\nCourt in view of decision given by Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/852206\/\">Torrent<br \/>\nPower AEC Limited v. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd.,<\/a><br \/>\nreported in 2006(2)<br \/>\nGLH 375.\n<\/p>\n<p>The relevant observation is made at Para 14.5-B.-Theft Cases and in<br \/>\nPara 21, which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 14.5-B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Theft Cases &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)<br \/>\n\t\testablishment of special Courts under Section 153 to try offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 135 to 139 including cases of theft of<br \/>\nelectricity where mens rea is required to be proved. Stringent<br \/>\npunishments and penalties to be imposed by the Court were also<br \/>\nprovided.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\t\tSection<br \/>\n154 also provided for powers of the Special Court. Sub-section (5) of<br \/>\nSection 154 as already enacted by the Parliament specifically<br \/>\nprovided that the Special Court constituted to try cases of theft of<br \/>\nelectricity may determine  the civil liability at a rate equivalent<br \/>\nto an amount not less than two  times  the tariff applicable to the<br \/>\nconcerned consumer  and that too for a maximum period of 12 months.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nLegislature had thus already provided two separate machineries for<br \/>\ncases of unauthorised use of electricity even in absence of mens rea<br \/>\non the one hand and cases of theft with mens rea on the other hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tGenuine<br \/>\nand serious difficulty arose  because even while Section 54(5)<br \/>\nempowered the Special Court to determine civil liability in theft<br \/>\ncases at the rate of two times the applicable tariff for a period of<br \/>\ntwelve months prior to the date of detection (over and above the fine<br \/>\nat three times the amount of financial gain on account of theft),<br \/>\nSection 50 of the Act empowering the State Electricity Regulatory<br \/>\nCommission  to frame the State Electricity Supply Code to provide for<br \/>\nrecovery of electricity charges, disconnection of electricity for non<br \/>\npayment and tampering did not specifically provide for the power of<br \/>\nthe Commission to prescribe as to how the licensee could make<br \/>\nassessment in theft cases. The order dated 8th June 2005<br \/>\nof the Central Government under Section 183 of the Act has removed<br \/>\nthe difficulty by providing that the Electricity Supply Code may also<br \/>\nprovide for the method of assessment of electricity charges payable<br \/>\nin case of theft of electricity pending adjudication by the proper<br \/>\nCourt.  The said order dated 8th June 2005 and Amended<br \/>\nRegulation (Section 7.6.5) of the Electricity Supply Code with effect<br \/>\nfrom 14th December 2005, providing for assessment in theft<br \/>\ncases at the rate of two times of the tariff rates applicable subject<br \/>\nto adjudication by the Special Court for a maximum period of twelve<br \/>\nmonths are quite in conformity with the basic scheme embodied in the<br \/>\nexisting provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.\tWe, therefore, do<br \/>\nnot find that the said Order dated 8the June 2005 or Amended<br \/>\nRegulation 7.6.5 confer additional powers running contrary to the<br \/>\nscheme of the parent Act as contended on behalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.\t\tTo<br \/>\nsum up then, our conclusions are as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\t\tThe<br \/>\nElectricity Act, 2003 (except Section 121) was brought into force by<br \/>\nthe Central Government on 10th June 2003, but in the State<br \/>\nof Gujarat, its provisions came to be applied with effect from 10th<br \/>\nDecember 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p> [Para<br \/>\n19.1]<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\t\tAlthough<br \/>\nthe terms of license issued in favour of the AEC and the GEB under<br \/>\nthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948<br \/>\nand the Conditions of Supply and Miscellaneous Charges framed by the<br \/>\nsaid licensees under the said Acts continued to be operative till<br \/>\n9.12.2004, thereafter with effect from 10.12.2004, the distribution<br \/>\nlicenses in favour of those licensees continue to operate subject to<br \/>\ntheir being in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act,<br \/>\n2003.   [Paras 19.3 and 20.2]<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tChallenge<br \/>\nto the legality of the Central Government order dated 8th<br \/>\nJune 2005 removing difficulties with reference to the powers of the<br \/>\nState Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 50 of the Act<br \/>\nand to the subsequent amendment dated 14th December 2005<br \/>\nto Regulation (Section) 7.6.5 of the Gujarat State Electricity Supply<br \/>\nCode is turned down.                      [Para 14]<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\t\tThe<br \/>\nElectricity Act, 2003 read with the Central Government order dated<br \/>\n8th June 2005 and the State Electricity Supply Code framed<br \/>\nunder Section 50 of the Act as amended with effect from 14th<br \/>\nDecember 2005 and the Statutory Regulations framed under the other<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act constitute a complete self-contained code in<br \/>\nrespect of criminal as well as civil liability in cases of theft of<br \/>\nelectricity and also in respect of the civil liability for<br \/>\nunauthorised use of electricity. \t\t\t\t\t           [para 16]<\/p>\n<p>(v)\t\tAssessment<br \/>\nto be made by the distribution licensee in theft cases is not<br \/>\ngoverned by the provisions of Section 126 of the Act, but is governed<br \/>\nby the provisions of Section 50 read with Regulation (Section) 7.6.5<br \/>\nof the Gujarat State Electricity Supply Code, 2005 as framed by the<br \/>\nGujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and amended with effect<br \/>\nfrom 14th December 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>[paras<br \/>\n9 and 12]<\/p>\n<p>(vi)\t\tAgainst<br \/>\nsuch assessment, remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Act is not<br \/>\navailable to the aggrieved party, but its remedy will be only before<br \/>\nthe Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act which will<br \/>\nexercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of<br \/>\nsub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 154 of the Act.\t    [Para 9]  <\/p>\n<p>(vii)\tAlthough<br \/>\nthere is no specific provision in Section 145 of the Act for<br \/>\nexclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any proceeding<br \/>\nin respect of any matter which the Special Court is empowered by or<br \/>\nunder the Act to determine, we are of the view that any dispute about<br \/>\ncivil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the<br \/>\njurisdiction of Civil Court.  [Paras 15 to 17]<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\naforesaid principles are applicable to all cases wherein theft is<br \/>\ndetected on or after 14th December 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of these facts, petitioner is having alternative effective<br \/>\nstatutory remedy under the provisions of Section 153 of Electricity<br \/>\nAct, 2003, therefore, this petition is not entertained by this Court<br \/>\nonly on that ground. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of<br \/>\nwithout expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis open for petitioner to approach Special Court under Section 153 of<br \/>\nElectricity Act, 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\nand when such request will be made by petitioner to Special Court,<br \/>\nlet Special Court may consider it and decide it as early as possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7811\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7811 of 2010 ========================================================= POLITE PROCESSORS &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS [&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-56491","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>Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 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\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-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=\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-15T19:26:19+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\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T19:26:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1267,\"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\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T19:26:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 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":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 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\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-15T19:26:19+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\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T19:26:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010"},"wordCount":1267,"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\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010","name":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T19:26:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polite-vs-paschim-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Polite vs Paschim on 12 July, 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\/56491","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=56491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}