{"id":57184,"date":"2010-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-27T21:17:00","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T15:47:00","slug":"jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&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\nLPA\/594\/2010\t 2\/ 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 594 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2420 of 1992\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 3277 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 594 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n===============================================\n\n\n \n\nJAMAL\nHAJI AHMED NOORANI & 2 - Appellants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKHIMZAR\nA SATTAR NAVIWALA & 5 - Respondents\n \n\n=============================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR PP MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s)\n: 1,1.2.1 - 3. \nMS MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 6, \nMS\nMANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, AGP  for Respondent(s) :\n5, \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 A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
 (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
1.
\n The appellants challenge
\nthe order passed in Special Civil Application No.2420 of 1992 on
\n6.8.2004, whereby the petition preferred by the appellants came to
\nbe dismissed. The said petition was preferred to challenge judgment
\nand order passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad
\nin Application No.218 of 1988  dated 2.7.1991.\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n This appeal was filed after lapse of 583 days beyond the period of
\nlimitation and therefore the same was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench
\nby order dated 16.3.2007.  The appellants carried the said order to
\nthe Apex Court, and the Apex Court by order dated 31.8.2009 allowed
\nCivil Appeal No.5912 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No.8608 of 2007.
\nThe Apex Court expressed a view that the Letters Patent Appeal should
\nhave been disposed of on merits.  The order was then set aside with a
\ndirection to this Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal on
\nmerits.  Hence, the matter is circulated today.\n<\/p>\n
3.
\n Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing on behalf of the appellants
\nsubmitted that this matter  is required to be heard on merits as per
\ndirection of the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.1
\nLearned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the appellants submitted
\nthat the tribunal has not considered the fact that the school is
\nclosed; that the appellant is a minority institution and enjoys
\ncertain privileges under Article 30 of the Constitution of India; and
\nthat the institution before passing order is required only to afford
\nan opportunity to the employee as provided under Section 40-B of the
\nBombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and that was done in respect of
\nrespondents No.1  and 2.  He submitted that no formal
\n termination order is passed in respect of respondents No.3 and 4
\nas the school was closed.\n<\/p>\n
3.2
\n\t   Mr.Majmudar submitted that the Tribunal  has ordered
\nreinstatement with full backwages.  The respondents would not have
\nremained unemployed for so many years and  they have not established
\nthat they have not gainfully employed during this period.  Still the
\nTribunal ordered full backwages and reinstatement which is also not
\nproper. He submitted that the appellant is a minority institution and
\nthe appellant would be burdened of heavy financial responsibility and
\ntherefore the appeal may be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
3.3
\n Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submitted that since the school is
\nclosed, the appellant is prepared  to settle the dispute with the
\nrespondents if they are ready to accept compensation in lieu of
\ntermination and backwages.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n Learned advocate Ms.Vyas  for  respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that,
\n the fact that the appellant is a minority institution  is not proved
\nby the appellants before the tribunal. Even if it is assumed that the
\nappellant is a minority institution, the right it enjoys is an
\nexemption from procedure envisaged in clause (ii) of sub-sec.(1)  of
\nSection 40-B of the Act requiring the institution to have approval of
\nthe termination.   But clause (i) of the said provisions still
\ncontinues to operate, and in the instant case, the appellants have
\nnot followed the principles of natural justice as per findings of
\nboth the tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, and therefore,
\nno protection as minority institution is available to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n  Learned advocate Ms.Vyas submitted that the Apex Court was
\nexamining the question of delay while observing that the matter has
\nto be decided on merits, but question of maintainability of appeal
\nwould also be the question of merit and therefore that question will
\nhave to be examined by this Court.  She submitted that the petition
\nwas purely under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though
\nnomenclature  as petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
\nConstitution of India.  This is clear from the prayer clause and
\ntherefore the order of the learned Single Judge being one in exercise
\nof jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
\nLetters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
6.
\nLearned advocate Mr.Majmudar in rejoinder submitted that, simply
\nbecause the learned Single Judge observed that the Court is
\nexercising  jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution  of
\nIndia, the petition cannot be labelled as one under Article 227 of
\nthe Constitution  of India.  In support of his submission, he has
\nrelied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C.
\nLIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX AND OTHERS reported in
\n(2009) 1 SCC 8 and ASHOK K. JHA AND OTHERS vs. GARDEN SILK MILLS AND
\nANOTHER reported in 2010(1) GLR 502, and submitted that
\nthe petition was under Article 226 of the Constitution and be
\ntreated, as such, holding that this appeal would be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
6.1
\n   Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submitted further that the backwages
\nand reinstatement may not be ordered in light of the  decision in the
\ncase of SENIOR
\nSUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH (TRAFFIC), BHOPAL vs SANTOSH KUMAR SEAL AND
\nOTHERS reported in AIR 2010  SC 2140.\n<\/p>\n
7.
\n   We have considered rival sides submissions.  In the first
\ninstance, we may record, at the outset, that both the Tribunal as
\nwell as the learned Single Judge have arrived at a concurrent factual
\nfinding that there was breach of principles of natural justice while
\nterminating the services of respondents No.1 to 4 and, therefore, the
\norder of termination passed in respect of respondents No.1 and 2 was
\nillegal and nonest, whereas no order of termination has been passed
\nin respect of respondents No.3 and 4 on the ground that the school is
\nclosed.  When no such order is passed, obvious there is no question
\nof having followed principles of natural justice, and therefore, we
\nfind that no interference is possible in this factual finding of the
\nTribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and the learned advocate
\nfor the appellants is also not able to show anything which would show
\nthat these findings are perverse in any manner.  All that is shown is
\nthat some show-cause-notice was served to respondents No.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Majmudar relied on the decision of Sindhi
\nEducation Society and another vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT
\nof Delhi and others reported in 2010(6) Scale 578.  Having
\ngone through the judgment, we do not find any observation by the Apex
\nCourt that minority institution while enjoying benefit of Article 30
\nof the Constitution of India are not bound to follow principles of
\nnatural justice or are exempted from following the procedure
\nprescribed by any  law.  All that the said article provides that they
\ncan establish an institution and administer the same. The appellants
\nhave not produced anything to show that they have their own set  of
\nadministrative rules and, therefore, the appellant would be bound by
\nthe general law and the principles which they are  bound  to be
\nfollowed.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\n We may also observe that the object behind Article 30  is to
\nfacilitate such minority institution  to achieve excellence in the
\nfield of education (para 60 of the judgment) and termination of
\nservices of respondents No.1 to 4, by no stretch of imagination, can
\nbe said to be undertaken by the appellant for achieving excellence in
\nthe field of education.  The decision, therefore, will not be helpful
\nto the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n Learned advocate relied on the decision in case of Committee
\nof Management, Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mander, Etah, U.P.
\nvs. Sachiv, U.P.Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others reported
\nin AIR 2006 SC 2974, to support the contention that prior
\napproval of District Basic Education Officer is not necessary for
\nterminating the services of teacher of minority institution. There
\ncannot be any dispute on this principle if the provision contained
\nunder Section 40-B of the Act is seen, as discussed earlier, where
\nthe exemption is from clause (ii) of sub-sec.(1) of Sec.40-B of the
\nAct.   In the instant case, there is a breach of principles of
\nnatural justice contemplated under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of
\nSec.40-B of the Act. The decision, therefore, cannot be helpful to
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
11.
\n   So far as the contention that the Tribunal has not given a finding
\non the question of appellant being a minority institution  enjoys
\ncertain privileges, we may observe that the protection that the
\nminority institution enjoys is one under Article 30 of the
\nConstitution of India which runs as under:\n<\/p>\n
 30.
\nRight to minorities to establish and administer education
\ninstitutions: –\n<\/p>\n
(1) All
\nminorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the
\nright to establish and administer educational institutions of their
\nchoice.\n<\/p>\n
[(1A)  In
\nmaking any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any
\nproperty of an educational institution established and administered
\nby a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that
\nthe amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition
\nof such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right
\nguaranteed under that clause.]<\/p>\n
(2)  The
\nState shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
\ndiscriminate against any educational institution on the ground that
\nit is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion
\nor language.\n<\/p>\n
  Clause 1 of the said
\nArticle would be attracted which permits the minorities to establish
\nan institution and to administer the same.  It does not give any such
\nexemption from following the requirements of law and principles of
\nnatural justice while administering the institution. The appellant is
\nnot able to show any  rules of its administration.  Under the
\ncircumstances, normal principles of law would be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\n It may also be noted that, even if the appellant is held to be a
\nminority institution, it has not followed the principles of natural
\njustice.  Remanding the matter to the Tribunal for giving a finding
\non it is not going to serve any purpose, but would only result into
\ndragging the litigation.\n<\/p>\n
13.
\n  Ms.Vyas was right  in contending  that the Supreme Court has
\nordered to hear the matter on merits ignoring the delay would mean
\nthat the question of maintainability will have to be examined by the
\nCourt as part of merits.  In this context, the judgment relied upon
\nby learned advocate Mr.Majmudar referred to hereinabove would
\nestablish that the Courts should  not take a technical approach.  In
\nthe light of the  said judgment, if the petition is examined, we find
\nthat, in the cause title, there is reference of Articles 226 and 227
\nof Constitution of India. However, the prayer clause runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
 (A)
\n to allow this petition with costs;\n<\/p>\n
 (B)
\n to quash and set aside the judgment Annex. `B’ dated 2.7.1991 passed
\nby the Primary School Tribunal passed in Application No.218\/1998;\n<\/p>\n
 (C)
\n to direct the Tribunal to decide the issue about the applicability
\nof the provisions of the Primary Education Act and the Rules framed
\nthereunder and as to whether the petitioner-institution is a minority
\ninstitution or not and\/or to modify suitably the said order Annex.`B’
\nin the facts and circumstances of the case;\n<\/p>\n
(D)
\n to issue interim relief staying the operation and implementation of
\nthe impugned order Annex. `B’ dated 2nd July 1991 pending the hearing
\nand final disposal of this special civil application.\n<\/p>\n
14.
\n  A plain reading of the prayers made in the petition and the
\ncontents of the petition makes it clear that the appellant was
\ninvoking only the jurisdiction of the High Court  under Article 227
\nof the Constitution of India. No writ of certiorari is sought for
\nconstructively by pleading and, therefore, the petition, as rightly
\nheld by the  learned Single Judge, is  one under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India.  If that is so,  an appeal under Clause 15 of
\nthe Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable  either.  We have
\nexamined the merits of the case.  We find that the appeal has no
\nmerits and is not maintainable either.  The appeal, therefore, must
\nfail and stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
15.
\nIn light of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.3277 of
\n2010 stands   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(
\nA.L. DAVE, J. ) ( BANKIM N. MEHTA, J. )<\/p>\n
syed\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/594\/2010 2\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 594 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2420 of 1992 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3277 of 2010 […]<\/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-57184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 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\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-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=\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-27T15:47:00+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T15:47:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1951,\"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\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T15:47:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 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":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 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\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-27T15:47:00+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T15:47:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010"},"wordCount":1951,"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\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010","name":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T15:47:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamal-vs-khimzar-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jamal vs Khimzar on 8 September, 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\/57184","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=57184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}