{"id":63706,"date":"2010-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-29T17:16:58","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T11:46:58","slug":"dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/24306\/2005\t 15\/ 15\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. 24306 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDINESHBHAI\nDAHYABHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDANDY\nVALVE MANUFACTURING CO. & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRN SHAH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \nMR DEVAN M DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \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.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/05\/2007 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tPetitioners \/ original defendants have filed this Petition under
\n\tArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and
\n\tsetting aside the orders passed by the Court below, under Section
\n\t11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short ?Sthe Rent Act??) and also
\n\tpraying for the stay, during the pendency of this Petition, not to
\n\tproceed further with the HRP Suit No. 213 of 1997 pending in the
\n\tCourt of Small Causes Court, at Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
Initially
\n\tthe Petitioners have filed Civil Revision Application No. 1332 of
\n\t2001. By virtue of a preliminary objection raised by the respondents
\n\tto the maintainability of the Civil Revision Application, either
\n\tunder Section 29(2) of the Rent Act or under Section 115 of the
\n\tCivil Procedure Code (for short ?Sthe Code??), the said Civil
\n\tRevision Application was ordered to be converted into Special Civil
\n\tApplication, upon a request made on behalf of the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case of the Petitioners that the Respondents \/ original
\n\tplaintiffs filed HRP Suit No. 213 of 1997 (for short ?Sthe Suit??)
\n\tagainst the present Petitioners \/ original Defendants for recovery
\n\tof possession of the suit premises and for recovery of arrears of
\n\trent and also for permanent injunction against the transfer,
\n\tsubletting or assigning the premises to any third party.  The
\n\tpresent petitioners have resisted the said Suit by filing written
\n\tstatement as exh.20, by contending, inter alia, that the respondents
\n\t\/ plaintiffs are not entitled to file the said Suit to recover
\n\tpossession and arrears of rent as there is no relationship of
\n\tland-lord and tenants as alleged nor rent claims of standard rent,
\n\tand the petitioner no.2 being Private Limited Company, petitioner
\n\tno.1 is not liable to pay the alleged rent of the suit premises.  It
\n\twas also resisted on the ground that the Rent Court has no
\n\tjurisdiction in view of the provision of Section 11(4) of the Rent
\n\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
During
\n\tthe pendency of the said Suit, the respondents \/ plaintiffs filed an
\n\tapplication under Section 11(4) of the Rent Act and further filed an
\n\tapplication exh.42 seeking direction from the trial Court against
\n\tthe petitioners \/ defendants to deposit due amount of arrears of
\n\trent.  It was contended by the petitioners \/ defendants that such an
\n\tapplication under Section 11(4) of the Rent Act is not maintainable,
\n\tand in support of this case, the petitioners \/ defendants have filed
\n\tan application exh. 49 seeking direction to produce documents so as
\n\tto establish that there is no relationship of land-lord and tenant
\n\tand Rent Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such Suit.  The
\n\tlearned Small Causes Court Judge, Ahmedabad has passed an order
\n\tbelow application exh.42 on 28.2.2001 whereby the application exh.
\n\t42 was allowed and the petitioners \/ defendants were directed to
\n\tdeposit a sum of Rs.6,80,000\/- in the Court on or before 1.5.2001,
\n\tfailing which, other orders would be envisaged.  The petitioners \/
\n\tdefendants were also directed to deposit Rs.8000\/- per month
\n\tregularly into Court, from 1.3.2001 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by the said order, the petitioners \/ Defendants filed
\n\tCivil Revision Application before the Appellate Bench of the Small
\n\tCauses Court, Ahmedabad and the said Civil Revision Application was
\n\trejected by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad
\n\tvide its order dated 6.8.2001.  It is this order which is challenged
\n\tin the present Special Civil Application before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.N.Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has
\n\tsubmitted that the judgment and orders of both the Courts below are
\n\tcontrary to law, against the provision of statutes and the evidence
\n\ton record.  He has further submitted that application exh.42 filed
\n\tby the respondents \/ plaintiffs invoking the provision of Section
\n\t11(4) of the Rent Act is not maintainable.  He has further submitted
\n\tthat both the Courts below should have rejected the application
\n\texh.42 by holding that the ingredients required for invoking the
\n\tprovision of Section 11(4) of the Rent Act are not satisfied in the
\n\tpresent case and when the Suit itself is not maintainable, the
\n\tquestion of invoking Section 11(4) of the Rent Act does not arise.
\n\tHe has further submitted that before deciding the application
\n\texh.42, both the Courts should have allowed the application exh.49
\n\tpreferred by the petitioners \/ defendants which is very much
\n\tnecessary for deciding the Suit as well as application exh.42, as in
\n\tabsence of documents mentioned in the application exh.49, the Court
\n\tcannot proceed further either with the Suit or under Section 11(4)
\n\tof the Rent Act.  He has further submitted that the Suit filed
\n\tagainst the petitioner no.2 Company which is not in existence since
\n\t12.9.1996, cannot be proceeded further and no order can be passed
\n\tagainst the dead entity.  He has further submitted that the Suit
\n\tfiled by the respondents \/ plaintiffs is not maintainable on the
\n\tground that the partnership is not in existence and all the partners
\n\thave not been impleaded as parties  – plaintiffs in the Suit.  He
\n\thas further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the partner in the
\n\trespondent no.1 ?  partnership firm.  He is impleaded as a party
\n\tonly because he is Director of the petitioner no.2 ?  Company.  No
\n\tliability can be fastened on the Director of the Company.  He has
\n\tfurther submitted that the respondent \/ plaintiff is a partnership
\n\tfirm and a Suit for dissolution is filed prior in point of time and
\n\tunless and until the disputes between the said partnership firm are
\n\tdecided the present Suit filed by the respondents \/ plaintiffs in
\n\tthe name of the partnership firm cannot be proceeded further.  He
\n\thas further submitted that in absence of partner, namely, Gitaben
\n\tSanabhai, the Suit filed is not maintainable.  He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the alleged demand of rent is not actually the rent
\n\twithin the meaning of the Rent Act.  When the amount is to be
\n\trecovered for the purpose of use of the premises as well as
\n\tmachinery etc and in absence of any decision on the said dispute, no
\n\torder can be passed invoking the provision of Section 11(4) of the
\n\tRent Act.  He has further submitted that the petitioners \/
\n\tdefendants have not paid any rent nor it was demanded from them
\n\tdespite the fact that the rent note was allegedly executed in the
\n\tyear 1984.  He has further submitted that the alleged rent note was
\n\tnot admissible in evidence as it was neither executed on valid stamp
\n\tpaper nor it was acted upon by the parties at any point of time.  He
\n\thas further submitted that before invoking the provision of Section
\n\t11(4) of the Rent Act for the purpose of recovery of rent, the
\n\tstandard rent has to be determined first, and the standard rent of
\n\tthe premises in any case does not exceed Rs.375\/- per month.  When
\n\tthe standard rent is not more than Rs.375\/- per month, both the
\n\tCourts have grievously erred in determining the standard rent at
\n\tRs.8000\/- per month.  He has further submitted that the claim made
\n\tby the respondents \/ defendants is barred by limitation and hence
\n\tthe orders passed by the Courts below on an application under
\n\tSection 11(4) of the Rent Act are not tenable at law and they
\n\tdeserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tsupport of his submission that the Courts below have no jurisdiction
\n\tto decide an application under Section 11(4) of the Rent Act, Mr.
\n\tShah has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of
\n\t (MESSERS) GANESH CORPORATION V\/S GUJARAT VIDYUT BOARD AND OTHERS,
\n\t2006(3) G.L.H. 708, wherein
\n\tit is held that; when the trial Court had no jurisdiction to
\n\tentertain or decide the suit, then, it could not proceed to decide
\n\ton the merits of the matter.  It was obliged to act in act in
\n\taccordance with R-10 of O-VII of the Code and should have asked for
\n\treturn of the plaint.  Mr. Shah has further submitted that
\n\tnon-deposit of the amount as directed by the Courts below would not
\n\tresult into striking off the defence automatically.  As a matter of
\n\tfact no such directions are issued in the impugned order.  For this
\n\tpurpose he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of
\n\t LAXMANDAS CHELARAM V\/S HEMDAS HAUROMAL,
\n\t 1984 G.L.H. 462,
\n\twherein it is held that; Every  litigant is entitled to a fair
\n\ttrial and a fair trial envisages an opportunity to make a defence
\n\tand the trial of a case on the defence.  The stringent
\n\tprovision in Section 11(4) is intended as a deterrent to a tenant
\n\twho fails to deposit what is determined by the Court by way of an
\n\tinterim measure as ?SStandard rent?? payable by him.  Even so, the
\n\tAct itself makes a provision by way of safeguard to relieve a
\n\tlitigant of the disastrous consequences that may befall on him,
\n\tperhaps by reason of sheer inability to comply with the order of
\n\tdeposit.  The provision has to be understood and applied in its true
\n\tspirit, viewing it as a deterrent provision and, at the same time,
\n\tassuring all safeguards envisaged by the Section to the tenant.
\n\tThese safeguards include a clear notice by the order of the Court
\n\tthat, if a tenant fails to comply with the order directing to
\n\tdeposit within the time specified or within such further time as may
\n\tbe allowed by the Court, the tenant will not be entitled to appear
\n\tin or to defend the suit except with the leave of the Court.  In
\n\tsuch an event, he knows the consequences of his default.  A mere
\n\tdirection to make a deposit within a particular time does not visit
\n\tthe consequence of the defence being struck off unless it be that
\n\tthere is a further direction by the Court that this be done if
\n\tcompliance is not made within a time to be specified.  In that
\n\tevent, a tenant, unable to comply, has an opportunity to show that
\n\tfor specified reasons he has not been able to make the deposit and
\n\tstill he may be relieved of the consequence of the order.  Where a
\n\tCourt does not pass an order that failure to deposit within a
\n\tspecified time will result in the consequence of the defence being
\n\tstruck off, there can be no order striking off the defence for
\n\treason of non deposit.  That would be to go against the express
\n\tlanguage of the statute and to seriously infringe the safeguard
\n\tenvisaged against the application of the stringent provision in
\n\tSection 11(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tBased
\n\ton the above observations, Mr. Shah has submitted that in the
\n\tpresent case also the Court has not passed any order to the effect
\n\tthat failure to deposit the amount as directed by the Court would
\n\tresult into striking off the defence.  He has, therefore, submitted
\n\tthat no such direction should be issued by this Court in the present
\n\tpetition.\n<\/p>\n
\tBased
\n\ton the aforesaid submissions, on facts as well as in law, and
\n\trelying upon the judgments cited at bar, Mr. Shah has submitted that
\n\tthe orders passed by the authorities below deserve to be quashed and
\n\tset aside and the petition be allowed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
\tPremal Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents \/
\n\tplaintiffs on the other hand has strongly submitted that both the
\n\tCourts below have given concurrent findings of fact and such
\n\tconcurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed while exercising the
\n\tpowers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  For this
\n\tpurpose he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
\n\tthe case  SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND OTHERS V\/S RAMESH S. HANKARE
\n\t(DEAD) BY LRS., (2001)8 SCC 477, wherein it is held; In an
\n\tapplication under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court
\n\thas to see whether the lower court \/ tribunal has jurisdiction to
\n\tdeal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is
\n\tvitiated by procedural irregularity; in other words, the Court is
\n\tconcerned not with the decision but with the decision making
\n\tprocess.  On this ground alone the order of the High Court is liable
\n\tto be set aside.  He further relies on the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  OUSEPH MATHAI AND OTHERS V\/S
\n\tM. ABDUL KHADIR, (2002) 1 SCC 319, wherein it is held that;
\n\tArticle 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts
\n\tand tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which the
\n\tHigh Court exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is
\n\tconferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said
\n\tarticle as a matter of right.  In fact power under this article
\n\tcasts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and
\n\ttribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not
\n\tcross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts
\n\tand tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the
\n\tambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals.  Only
\n\twrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction
\n\tunder this article unless the wrong is referable to grave
\n\tdereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate
\n\tcourts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party.  No
\n\tsuch position is found in the present case which justifies
\n\texercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.  He further
\n\trelies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\n\t ESSEN DEINKI V\/S RAJIV KUMAR, (2002) 8 SCC 400, wherein it is
\n\theld that; Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
\n\tConstitution is limited and restrictive in nature.  It is so
\n\texercised in normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors
\n\tof law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to
\n\tname a few.  It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not
\n\tconfer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders
\n\tor even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction
\n\tof the courts below.  The finding of fact being within the domain of
\n\tthe inferior tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording
\n\tthereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in
\n\tmanifest injustice, interference under the article is not called
\n\tfor.\n<\/p>\n
\tBased
\n\ton the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Premal Joshi has strongly urged that
\n\tthere is no lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of
\n\tnatural justice.  The findings recorded by the Courts below cannot
\n\tbe said to be perverse and hence, this Court should not exercise its
\n\tsupervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
\n\ttherefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tApart
\n\tfrom the maintainability of the petition, Mr. Joshi has addressed
\n\tthe Court even on merits and submitted that there is no infirmity or
\n\tillegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below.  He has
\n\tsubmitted that the learned Small Causes Court Judge has rightly
\n\tallowed the application preferred by the respondents plaintiffs
\n\tunder Section 11(4) of the Rent Act and the revision application
\n\tfiled there against was also rightly rejected by the Appellate
\n\tCourt.  He has submitted that registered notice dated 9.07.1996 was
\n\tserved on the petitioners as provided under Section 12(2)(a) of the
\n\tRent Act.  But the petitioners have not cared even to reply to the
\n\tsaid notice.  He has further submitted that rent note dated
\n\t17.4.1984 between the petitioners and the respondents is filed in
\n\tthe trial Court in which the petitioners have signed the said
\n\tdocument and have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions stated
\n\ttherein.  He has further submitted that the respondent no.1 is a
\n\tpartnership firm and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are its partners.
\n\tThe present petitioner no.1 \/ original defendant is a company
\n\tincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner no.2
\n\tis Director of the said Company.  The petitioner no.2 is not joined
\n\tin his individual capacity.  The Suit was not filed by one partner
\n\tagainst the another partner as contended.  He has further submitted
\n\tthat the Appellate Court has rightly held that it has jurisdiction
\n\tto decide the subject matter and the bar of Section 6 of the Rent
\n\tAct does not come in the way of the respondents \/ plaintiffs.
\n\tHowever, the question of jurisdiction is still to be decided at the
\n\ttime of trial of the Suit, and the only question which is required
\n\tto be determined for the purpose of deciding the respondents \/
\n\tplaintiffs application exh. 42 is, whether there exists relationship
\n\tof land-lord and the tenant between the parties and the Appellate
\n\tCourt has rightly relied upon the rent note produced at exh.36\/2.
\n\tHe has further submitted that while rejecting the application exh.49
\n\tmoved by the petitioners \/ defendants for production of documents,
\n\tthe trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that looking to
\n\tthe pleadings and the facts of the case, the documents called for by
\n\tthe respondents \/ defendants  were not relevant for the purpose of
\n\tdeciding the subject matter or the suit as well as for deciding
\n\tapplication exh.42 given under Section 11(4) of the Rent Act.  He
\n\thas further submitted that various contentions raised and statements
\n\tmade in the various grounds of the revision application which was
\n\tsubsequently converted into Special Civil Application are wrong,
\n\tillegal and without any basis. Both the Courts below have
\n\tappreciated and considered all the contentions, and therefore, the
\n\tpresent petition should not be entertained by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\n\thaving heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
\n\tparties and after having gone through the impugned orders passed by
\n\tboth the Courts below and the submissions made before this Court,
\n\tthe Court is of the view that since there is concurrent findings of
\n\tfact given by the Court below, it is not just and proper for this
\n\tCourt to interfere in the said order, especially when the Suit is
\n\tstill pending before the trial Court.  The grounds urged and the
\n\tcontentions raised were also urged before the Courts below and after
\n\tproper appreciation of facts and in light of the statutory
\n\tprovisions and decided case law, both the Courts below have come to
\n\tthe right conclusion, which cannot be interfered with while
\n\texercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of Inida.
\n\tThe decisions cited before this Court in support of the submissions
\n\tof the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case. Even
\n\twith regard to jurisdiction, the trial Court has not come to the
\n\tconclusion that it had no jurisdiction. The issue was kept open and
\n\tit is to be decided at the time of final disposal of the Suit.
\n\tThere is no dispute about the fact that the respondent \/ plaintiff
\n\tis a partnership firm.  It is true that the Suit for dissolution of
\n\tthe partnership firm is pending but Suit for recovery of rent as
\n\twell possession of the Suit property is certainly maintainable.  The
\n\tpresent petitioner no.1 is impleaded in the Suit in its capacity as
\n\ta Director.  Even if he is a partner in the partnership firm, it
\n\tcannot be said that any recovery is sought to be enforced against
\n\thim qua his capacity as partner in the partnership firm.  The ground
\n\traised regarding time barred debt is properly considered by the
\n\ttrial Court and only the admissible debt was taken into
\n\tconsideration and direction to deposit the amount is also restricted
\n\tto that effect.  The quantum of standard rent as decided by the
\n\ttrial Court cannot call for any interference by this Court.
\n\tConsidering all the contentions raised before this Court, the Court
\n\tis of the view that there is no substance or merits in the petition.
\n\tIt is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the
\n\tground with regard to jurisdiction, as the Suit is still pending.
\n\tThe Court, therefore, dismisses this petition only on the ground
\n\tthat the powers exercisable by this Court under Article 227 of the
\n\tConstitution are very restricted and the facts of the present case
\n\tdo not warrant the Court to exercise such powers.  The petition is
\n\ttherefore dismissed.  Rule is discharged without any order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
(K.A.Puj,J)<\/p>\n
Jayanti*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/24306\/2005 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24306 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-63706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 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\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-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=\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-29T11:46:58+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T11:46:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3292,\"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\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T11:46:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 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":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 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\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-29T11:46:58+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T11:46:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010"},"wordCount":3292,"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\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010","name":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T11:46:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dineshbhai-vs-dandy-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dineshbhai vs Dandy on 12 October, 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\/63706","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=63706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}