{"id":58645,"date":"2008-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-28T01:01:51","modified_gmt":"2017-02-27T19:31:51","slug":"nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.A.Mehta And H.B.Antani, H.B.Antani<\/div>\n<pre>  \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\/3070\/1999\t 6\/ 8\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.3070 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA \t\tSd\/-\n \n\n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\tSd\/- \n===================================================\n \n\t  \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\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \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\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \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\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \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\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n===================================================\n \n\nNIKHIL\nK KOTAK - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHESH\nKUMAR - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR VARUN K PATEL for\nMR SN SOPARKAR for the Petitioner \nMRS\nMM BHATT for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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.A.MEHTA\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\n            \n\t\t\tand\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 H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\nDate\n: 02\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n\n ORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tpetition challenges notice issued under Section 148 of the<br \/>\n\tIncome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 22.03.1999 by the respondent<br \/>\n\tassessing officer for Assessment Year 1992-93.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, an individual, filed return of income for Assessment<br \/>\n\tYear 1992-93 declaring total income of Rs.23,84,550\/-. The Assessing<br \/>\n\tOfficer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. On 20.03.1995<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner assessee filed a detailed reply whereunder in<br \/>\n\tParagraph No.4 it was stated \u00fdSThe details of the amount<br \/>\n\tinvested in the new house being Rs.11,36,477 in each case were duly<br \/>\n\tenclosed alongwith the return of income. &#8230;\u00fd\u00fd. The assessment<br \/>\n\torder was framed on 23.03.1995 under Section 143(3) of the Act after<br \/>\n\treferring to the working of long term gains in Paragraph No.3 of the<br \/>\n\tassessment order.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\timpugned notice dated 22.03.1999 has been assailed by the learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioner on the ground that the said notice has<br \/>\n\tbeen issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the<br \/>\n\trelevant assessment year and hence, as per provisions of Section 147<br \/>\n\tof the Act, more particularly the Proviso thereunder, the onus is on<br \/>\n\tthe respondent authority to show that there is failure on part of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner-assessee as stipulated by the provisions of the<br \/>\n\tProviso to Section 147 of the Act. It was submitted that in so far<br \/>\n\tas the first two conditions are concerned viz. filing of return and<br \/>\n\tresponding to the statutory notice, it is not even the case of the<br \/>\n\trevenue that either of the said two conditions are violated. In so<br \/>\n\tfar as the third condition relating to omission to disclose fully<br \/>\n\tand truly all material facts relevant for the assessment of the<br \/>\n\tassessment year in question it was submitted that even in the<br \/>\n\treasons recorded, no such statement is made by the respondent<br \/>\n\tauthority. It was, therefore, urged that the petition is required to<br \/>\n\tbe allowed after quashing and setting aside the impugned notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>On<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the respondent authority Mrs.M.M.Bhatt, learned  Standing<br \/>\n\tCounsel, has invited attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated<br \/>\n\t27.07.1999 as well as the reasons recorded which have been annexed<br \/>\n\tto the affidavit-in-reply. It was further submitted that the<br \/>\n\tassessment order was silent in relation to the claim made by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner. That in  fact the sum of Rs.10,46,930\/- being the cost<br \/>\n\tof improvement on new asset was not an allowable deduction and<br \/>\n\tincorrect exemption had been granted resulting in under-assessment<br \/>\n\tof income.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section<br \/>\n\t147 of the Act permits re-opening of a completed assessment in a<br \/>\n\tcase where income liable to tax has escaped assessment. However,<br \/>\n\tProviso under the said section carves out an exception and shifts<br \/>\n\tthe burden on revenue in a case where a period of four years has<br \/>\n\telapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Proviso<br \/>\n\tstipulates three conditions. Revenue is required to show from the<br \/>\n\trecord and the facts of the case that any one of the three<br \/>\n\tconditions stands satisfied before the Assessing Officer can assume<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction to issue notice for re-assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe present case, admittedly, the conditions regarding non-filing of<br \/>\n\treturn and the condition regarding non-responding to statutory<br \/>\n\tnotice are not applicable. The third condition requires the revenue<br \/>\n\tto establish that there was any omission or failure on part of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner-assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts<br \/>\n\trelevant for the assessment of the assessment year in question. The<br \/>\n\treasons recorded read as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00fdSReasons<br \/>\n\trecorded for issue of notice u\/s.148<\/p>\n<p>Reg.:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Nikhil K. Kotak, A&#8217;bad<\/p>\n<p>A.Y.:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1992-93<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tassessee had claimed exemption u\/s. 54 of Rs.11,36,477\/- i.e. 1\/3rd<br \/>\n\tshare of Rs.34,09,430\/- for investment in new house against the<br \/>\n\tincome from long term capital gain. The details of investment was as<br \/>\n\tunder:-<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t \n\n\n\t \n\n1)\tPurchase\n\tcost of new house\t \t Rs.23,62,500\/-\n\t \n\n2)\tcost\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tof improvement on new asset Rs.10,46,930\/-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     Rs.34,09,430\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\texemption u\/s. 54 was actually allowable on the cost of purchase of<br \/>\n\tnew asset (i.e. residential house) or cost construction of new asset<br \/>\n\tonly. Thus, the cost of improvement of the property incurred later<br \/>\n\ton will not be qualify for exemption u\/s. 54. The incorrect<br \/>\n\texemption granted resulted in under-assessment of income of<br \/>\n\tRs.348977\/-.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n<p>On<br \/>\n\ta plain reading of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the<br \/>\n\trespondent-authority it becomes clear that it is not even the case<br \/>\n\tof the revenue that there was any omission or failure on part of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner-assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts<br \/>\n\trelevant for the assessment of the assessment year in question. In<br \/>\n\tfact when one goes through Annexure-B, which is the statement<br \/>\n\tshowing computation of total income, it becomes clear that all<br \/>\n\trelevant details for computing long term capital gains have been<br \/>\n\tshown by the petitioner-assessee. Not only that, details of<br \/>\n\texemption claimed under Section 54 of the Act in respect of<br \/>\n\tinvestment in new house have also been shown on a separate sheet. In<br \/>\n\tfact the figures recorded by the assessing officer, in the reasons<br \/>\n\treproduced hereinabove, appear only from the details of exemption<br \/>\n\tplaced on record by the petitioner-assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is<br \/>\n\tapparent that there is no omission or failure on part of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner-assessee as required by provisions of the Proviso to<br \/>\n\tSection 147 of the Act. Hence, the impugned notice dated 22.03.1999<br \/>\n\tissued under Section 148 of the Act, which is admittedly issued<br \/>\n\tbeyond a period of four years i.e. 31.03.1997, is bad in law and<br \/>\n\twithout jurisdiction. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the<br \/>\n\tAct dated 22.03.1999 is hereby quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. There shall be<br \/>\n\tno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>[D.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>MEHTA, J]<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.B.ANTANI,<br \/>\nJ]<\/p>\n<p>***<\/p>\n<p>Bhavesh*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008 Bench: D.A.Mehta And H.B.Antani, H.B.Antani SCA\/3070\/1999 6\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3070 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Sd\/- =================================================== 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-58645","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 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\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-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=\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-27T19:31:51+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T19:31:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":966,\"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\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T19:31:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 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":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 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\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-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":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-27T19:31:51+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T19:31:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008"},"wordCount":966,"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\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008","name":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T19:31:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nikhil-vs-mahesh-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nikhil vs Mahesh on 2 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\/58645","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=58645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}