{"id":5980,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-11T06:39:37","modified_gmt":"2018-12-11T01:09:37","slug":"g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G vs Bharatkumar on 9 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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/28274\/2007\t 8\/ 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. 28274 of 2007\n \n\n \n\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nG\nS R T C - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBHARATKUMAR\nP PRAJAPATI C\/O. SECRETARY - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nSEJAL K MANDAVIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR GK\nRATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s)\n: 1, \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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tIn<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner ?  State Road Transport Corporation<br \/>\nhas challenged the award dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.149 of 2003. By<br \/>\nimpugned order, the learned Industrial Tribunal has set aside the<br \/>\norder dated 6.12.1997   passed by the Disciplinary Authority  and<br \/>\norder dated 22.6.1999 passed by the Appellate ?  Reviewing Authority<br \/>\nof the petitioner &#8211; Corporation pursuant to and in connection with<br \/>\nthe charge-sheet dated 23.7.1997. The impugned award render, this<br \/>\ncase of misconduct,  in case of &#8220;no penalty&#8221; though the<br \/>\ncharge is held as proved by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority and legality of this departmental inquiry was not<br \/>\nchallenged. Hence, Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tMs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate appears for the petitioner ?<br \/>\nCorporation and  in response to the notice issued by the Court, Mr.<br \/>\nRathod, learned advocate appears for the respondent. In view of the<br \/>\njoint request of the advocates of both sides and with their consent,<br \/>\nthe petition is taken up for final hearing today and is decided<br \/>\nfinally.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mandavia, learned advocate has taken this Court through the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet, statements of the passengers as well as the statement<br \/>\nof the respondent and also through the findings of the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer and submitted that the learned Industrial Court has committed<br \/>\nerror in setting aside the penalty order as a result of which the<br \/>\nrespondent as well as the misconduct would go without any punishment<br \/>\nwhatsoever. She submitted that the statements of the passengers<br \/>\nconclusively demonstrated that the respondent  collected fair, but<br \/>\ndid not issue ticket. She also relied upon the statement made by the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, Mr. Rathod, learned advocate submitted that the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and he assailed the<br \/>\norders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate &#8211; Reviewing<br \/>\nAuthority mainly by deriving support from the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority&#8217;s order, wherein, while imposing penalty, the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority has recorded that if the checking team had not undertaken<br \/>\nthe checking at the material point of time, then the respondent would<br \/>\nhave been successful in misappropriation of the amount by collecting<br \/>\nfair and not issuing tickets. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate cited the<br \/>\nsaid observations and submitted that the order of the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority discloses that the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded on<br \/>\nthe basis of assumptions and conjunctures. He also relied upon the<br \/>\ncross-examination of Mr. N.A. Pandya, the reporter (i.e. the member<br \/>\nof checking team), wherein the respondent appears to have questioned<br \/>\nhim as to whether the checking team had verified the cash with the<br \/>\nrespondent or not and in reply, said Mr. Pandya   seems to have<br \/>\nadmitted that the cash was not verified. On the basis of such<br \/>\nstatement made by Mr. Pandya, Mr. Rathod, learned advocate submitted<br \/>\nthat unless the cash with the respondent was verified, the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority could not have reached to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe respondent had collected the fair and had not issued tickets.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner Corporation that while respondent was<br \/>\non duty as Conductor in bus plying from Lanva to Patan. Three groups<br \/>\nof passengers boarded the bus. As per the case of the petitioner &#8211;<br \/>\nCorporation, in the first group, there were two passengers, from<br \/>\nwhom, the respondent  collected fair of Rs.2\/-, but did not issue<br \/>\ntickets until the said persons reached  their destination viz.<br \/>\nShankhari. Likewise in respect of the second group, there were two<br \/>\npassengers and from them the respondent collected fair of Rs.2\/-, but<br \/>\ndid not issue tickets and in respect of the third group of<br \/>\npassengers, there were three passengers, the respondent collected<br \/>\nfair of Rs.4.50 and did not issue tickets. Thus, in respect of seven<br \/>\ntickets, though he collected fair of Rs.8.50, he did not issue<br \/>\ntickets. In connection with the said misconduct, a charge-sheet dated<br \/>\n27.7.1997 was framed and issued on the basis of the statements of<br \/>\npassengers recorded by the checking team as well as the statement of<br \/>\nrespondent. The petitioner ?  Corporation has also claimed that<br \/>\ncopies of the statements were served to the respondent along with<br \/>\ncharge-sheet and after following the normal procedure of inviting<br \/>\nexplanation and considering the explanation, the petitioner<br \/>\nCorporation conducted departmental inquiry wherein the respondent<br \/>\nherein was afforded opportunity to make statement in his defence as<br \/>\nwell as to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the respondent ?<br \/>\nCorporation. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24.11.1997. Subsequently,<br \/>\nafter considering the record and findings of the Inquiry Officer, the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority passed an order imposing punishment of<br \/>\nstoppage of four increments with permanent effect. The respondent<br \/>\nherein challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority,<br \/>\nhowever, upon examining the record, the Appellate Authority<br \/>\nconsidered it  appropriate to take the matter in review since<br \/>\nin view of the Appellate Authority, the penalty by the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority  was inadequate. After issuing notice to the<br \/>\nrespondent for initiating review proceedings, the Reviewing Authority<br \/>\nafforded opportunity of hearing and defence to the respondent and<br \/>\nsubsequently passed an order dated 4.5.1998 enhancing punishment by<br \/>\ndirecting that the respondent be placed on the minimum\/original scale<br \/>\nfor five years. Aggrieved by the said orders of Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority and Appellate ?  Reviewing Authority, the respondent<br \/>\nraised industrial dispute which culminated into Reference (I.T.)<br \/>\nNo.149 of 2003. During the proceedings before the learned Industrial<br \/>\nCourt, the respondent admitted legality and propriety of the<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry order, however, challenged the findings of the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nIndustrial Court has, upon adjudication of the Reference, passed<br \/>\nimpugned award dated 30.11.2006, whereby the learned Court has set<br \/>\naside the orders passed against the respondent. In other words, the<br \/>\nlearned Industrial Court has, by the impugned order, wiped out the<br \/>\npunishment in toto and consequently, now there is no penalty imposed<br \/>\non the respondent. Thus, being aggrieved by the said award, the<br \/>\npetitioner &#8211; Corporation is before this Court by way of present<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mandavia, learned advocate has taken this Court through the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet, statements of the passengers as well as the statement<br \/>\nof the respondent and also through the findings of the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer and submitted that the learned Industrial Court has committed<br \/>\nerror in setting aside the penalty order as a result of which the<br \/>\nrespondent as well as the misconduct would go without any punishment<br \/>\nwhatsoever. She submitted that the statements of the passengers<br \/>\nconclusively demonstrated that the respondent  collected fair, but<br \/>\ndid not issue ticket. She also relied upon the statement made by the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAt<br \/>\nfirst blush, the said<br \/>\nsubmissions of Mr. Rathod, learned advocate, sounds attractive and he<br \/>\nappeared on good footing when he submitted that without examining or<br \/>\nverifying the cash, the Authority could not have reached to the<br \/>\nfindings that amount was collected by the respondent. However,<br \/>\nstatement made by the respondent before the checking team  rings a<br \/>\nbell of caution and it comes out that Mr. Rathod seems to be<br \/>\noverlooking respondent&#8217;s statement. It is pertinent that in his<br \/>\nstatement, the respondent appears to have admitted that the amount<br \/>\nfrom the said passengers was received and tickets were not issued and<br \/>\nhe has tried to explain said statement by adding that he was in<br \/>\nprocess of issuing the tickets and the way bill was not closed and if<br \/>\nthe checking team had not intervened at material point of time, he<br \/>\nwould have issued tickets. In this view of the matter, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that the authorities have not given any attention to his<br \/>\nexplanation or defence. The Authorities appear to be right in holding<br \/>\nthat the said explanation was an after thought.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\nview that the respondents explanation is an after thought, gets<br \/>\nfortified by the statements of the passengers that the fair were<br \/>\ncollected from them but tickets were not issued. The said statements<br \/>\nalso establish that the tickets were not issued until arrival of the<br \/>\ndestination of some of the passengers. From the conjoint reading of<br \/>\nthe explanation of respondent and the statements of the passengers,<br \/>\nit transpires that the respondent has admitted both aspects namely\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) fair were collected from seven passengers and (b) tickets were<br \/>\nnot issued. In light of the fact that the bus had travelled almost<br \/>\none K.M., it is difficult to accept the explanation of the respondent<br \/>\nand from the conspectus of the said aspect, it also become clear that<br \/>\nthe explanation of the respondent is an excuse and after thought.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIt<br \/>\nis also to be noted that the default card of the respondent discloses<br \/>\nthat he has past record of almost 12 instances.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.<br \/>\nUnder the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot<br \/>\nbe said to be perverse as held by the learned Labour Court. Once it<br \/>\nis found and held  that the finding of the Inquiry Officer are not<br \/>\nperverse and when the proceedings of the departmental inquiry are<br \/>\nadmitted by the petitioner, then in that event, the order of the<br \/>\nlearned Labour Court by which the Court set aside the order of the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority does not remain sustainable. This discussion<br \/>\nbrings in picture the order of the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing<br \/>\nAuthority has enhanced the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority, but without recording any cogent and satisfactory reasons,<br \/>\nstrong enough to dislodge the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.<br \/>\nWithout recording good and sufficient reason as to how the order of<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority was erroneous or inadequate, the Reviewing<br \/>\nAuthority could not have mechanically interfered with the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority&#8217;s decision. There does not appear to be any<br \/>\njustifiable basis for reviewing authority to presume that the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s past record was not considered by the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority while deciding the quantum of penalty. In absence of any<br \/>\nreason, order of the Reviewing Authority is not sustainable, because<br \/>\nthe Reviewing Authority has merely proceeded on the premise that the<br \/>\nrespondent has unsatisfactory and tainted service recorded, however,<br \/>\nas mentioned above there was no justification for presuming that the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority did not consider the past record while<br \/>\ndeciding quantum of punishment. Further the Reviewing Authority has<br \/>\nnot recorded any reason, other than reference of past 12 instances,<br \/>\nfor holding that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is<br \/>\ninadequate. It is difficult to sustain such unreasoned order made on<br \/>\npresumptions that the history of 12 past instances was not kept in<br \/>\nmind by Disciplinary Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThus,<br \/>\nin above view of the matter, the award of the learned Labour Court<br \/>\nallowing Reference in toto, because of which the respondent would go<br \/>\nscott free and without any penalty,  is not sustainable. Likewise the<br \/>\norder of the Reviewing Authority, enhancing penalty, without<br \/>\nrecording any strong and good reasons for upsetting the order of<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority and arriving at different conclusion as regard<br \/>\nthe punishment is not sustainable. Under the circumstances, the award<br \/>\nof the learned Labour Court is set aside and the order of the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority is restored.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner ?  Corporation is directed to make payment of<br \/>\ndifferential amount, which may be payable after this order, within a<br \/>\nperiod of four weeks. The petition is, thus, partly  allowed to the<br \/>\naforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.M.THAKER,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/28274\/2007 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28274 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-5980","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>G vs Bharatkumar on 9 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\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-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=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-11T01:09:37+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\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T01:09:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1869,\"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\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\",\"name\":\"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T01:09:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 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":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 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\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-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":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-11T01:09:37+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\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T01:09:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008"},"wordCount":1869,"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\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008","name":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T01:09:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-vs-bharatkumar-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G vs Bharatkumar on 9 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\/5980","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=5980"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5980\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}