{"id":6387,"date":"2008-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-07T23:51:20","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T18:21:20","slug":"ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mohit S. D.H.Waghela, D.H.Waghela<\/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\/1057\/2008\t 6\/ 6\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. 1057 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\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\nASHAPURA\nENTERPRISE THROUGH KAMLESH GANATRA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nFOOD\nCORPORATION OF INDIA THROUG GENERAL MANAGER &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMAULIK G NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR.MIHIR JOSHI WITH MR\nSHAKEEL A QURESHI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nM\/S THAKKAR ASSOC.\nfor Respondent(s) :\n3, \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 M.S.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/06\/2008  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)<\/p>\n<p>\tWhat<br \/>\nis challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nis the decision of respondent No.1 \u00fd  Food Corporation of India<br \/>\n(\u00fdSFCI\u00fd\u00fd or the \u00fdSCorporation\u00fd\u00fd for short) awarding Handling and<br \/>\nTransport Contract for FSD Bhavnagar on regular basis for a period of<br \/>\ntwo years.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nFCI invited tenders in January 2008 for the above contract for the<br \/>\nestimated value of Rs.1.04 crores. The petitioner and respondent No.3<br \/>\nsubmitted their respective tenders. Respondent No.3 was considered to<br \/>\nbe eligible and the petitioner was dis-qualified on the following<br \/>\ngrounds:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\tThe power of<br \/>\n\t\t\tattorney is not furnished for particular H&amp;T contract at FSD<br \/>\n\t\t\tBhavnagar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\tThe revised<br \/>\n\t\t\tpartnership deed dated 08.02.2007 has not been registered with<br \/>\n\t\t\tRegistrar of firms under \u00fdSForm No.G\u00fd\u00fd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\tProperty including<br \/>\n\t\t\tnos. of trucks of partner is not shown in the revised partnership<br \/>\n\t\t\tdeed dated 08.02.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n above grounds were communicated to the petitioner vide F.C.I.&#8217;s<br \/>\nletters dated 21.01.2008 at Annexure P-3 to the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMr.S.N.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shelat, learned counsel with Mr.Maulik Nanavati, for the petitioner<br \/>\nhas challenged the above decision on the ground that the FCI has<br \/>\nignored the relevant criteria and has taken into account the<br \/>\nirrelevant material.  As regards ground No.1, it is submitted that<br \/>\nwhen the petitioner had produced the power of attorney in favour of<br \/>\nits authorised representative, (one of the partners) it was not<br \/>\nnecessary for the power of attorney to mention the particular H&amp;T<br \/>\ncontract at FSD Bhavnagar. General power of attorney was for all<br \/>\ncontracts to be entered into by the partnership firm and it can never<br \/>\nbe said that the power of attorney must be executed in respect of<br \/>\neach contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tAs<br \/>\nregards the second ground, it is submitted that the partnership firm<br \/>\nwas registered on 27.12.2005 and merely because there was a change in<br \/>\nthe partnership by another partner called Dashrathsingh Gohil joining<br \/>\nthe firm, non-registration of such change in composition of the firm<br \/>\ndoes not change the status of the firm as a registered partnership<br \/>\nfirm. It is also submitted that in any view of the matter, after the<br \/>\ntenders were submitted, the said change in composition of partnership<br \/>\nfirm has also been registered.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAs<br \/>\nregards the third ground, it is submitted that Mr.Dashrathsingh B.<br \/>\nGohil owns five trucks and that the photostat copies of the<br \/>\nregistration certificates in respect of these five trucks produced<br \/>\nwith tender form indicates that Dashrathsingh Gohil is the owner of<br \/>\nthe trucks, that was sufficient for complying with the tender<br \/>\nconditions and sufficient assurance that the trucks are available<br \/>\nwith the partnership firm for the purpose of the contract in<br \/>\nquestion, if awarded to the partnership firm.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, Mr.Mihir Joshi with Mr.Kureshi for the F.C.I. has<br \/>\nopposed the petition and relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed by<br \/>\nthe Assistant General Manager of the Corporation has sought to<br \/>\njustify the decision of the Corporation.  It is submitted that<br \/>\nDashrathsingh Gohil having only 2% share in the profit and loss of<br \/>\nthe firm is shown to be the owner of five trucks and that fact cannot<br \/>\nindicate that the partnership firm itself has all the five trucks in<br \/>\nits common stocks.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tMr.Pahwa,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondent No.3 has also opposed the petition and<br \/>\nsubmitted that respondent No.3 has been the existing contractor with<br \/>\nthe F.C.I. for the last 2 \u00bd years at Bhavnagar and that<br \/>\nrespondent No.3 is also operating similar contracts with F.C.I. at<br \/>\nother places at Wadhwan, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Vadodara and has been<br \/>\nrendering satisfactory services. It is also submitted that last year,<br \/>\nthe F.C.I.&#8217;s contractor at Bhavnagar had committed the default and<br \/>\nrespondent No.3 agreed to take over the transport operations at a<br \/>\nmuch lower rate, even incurring loss, only to see that the F.C.I. is<br \/>\nnot put into difficulty and at that time, respondent No.3 was<br \/>\ninformed that satisfactory performance of that contract at a much<br \/>\nlower rate would be taken into consideration while taking future<br \/>\ndecisions. Mr.Pahwa has submitted that though the rate quoted by<br \/>\nrespondent No.3 was 95% above the estimated rate and F.C.I. has also<br \/>\ntaken the decision to award the contract to respondent No.3,<br \/>\nrespondent No.3 is prepared to reduce the rate to 86% above the<br \/>\nestimated rate and that looking to the cost analysis, it is not<br \/>\npossible for respondent No.3 to reduce the rate any further.  It is<br \/>\nalso submitted that the cost of diesel has substantially gone up in<br \/>\nthe last six months and in absence of any escalation clause,<br \/>\nrespondent No.3 will also have to bear any additional increase in the<br \/>\ncost of diesel which is likely to rise again in future.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tAfter<br \/>\nhearing the learned counsel for the parties, we called for the rates<br \/>\nat which similar contracts were awarded by F.C.I. In the year 2008,<br \/>\nin Saurashtra as well as some other regions of the State, the rates<br \/>\nvaried from 36% to 60% above the estimated value of contract in<br \/>\nFebruary, 2008. The rates at which the contracts were awarded in<br \/>\nJune, 2008, varied between 150% and 170% above the estimated value of<br \/>\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned counsel for the parties, we appreciate the<br \/>\ncontention urged on behalf of the petitioner regarding the first<br \/>\nground on which the petitioner was disqualified. The same could not<br \/>\nhave been held out against the petitioner, as the power of attorney<br \/>\nproduced by the partnership firm was wide enough to bind the firm in<br \/>\nall matters pertaining to the contract in question. We do not propose<br \/>\nto express any opinion on the second ground because in our opinion,<br \/>\nthe third ground which was held out by the Corporation for<br \/>\ndisqualifying the petitioner appears to have been sufficiently borne<br \/>\nout by the record of the tender proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tAs<br \/>\nindicated earlier, the contract is for Handling and Transporting of<br \/>\nthe food grain  bags at the food storage depot, Bhavnagar and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the contractor is required to operate trucks.  One of the<br \/>\ntender conditions is that the contractor shall have ownership proof<br \/>\nof four trucks at least three months old prior to the date of opening<br \/>\nof tenders supported with legible xerox copies of RC books and road<br \/>\ntax paid up-date. The condition further requires that in case of<br \/>\npartnership firm, the property\/trucks of the partners should be<br \/>\nthrown in common stocks.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tAll<br \/>\nthat the petitioner had done in the instant case, while submitting<br \/>\nthe tenders, was to produce the xerox copies of the Registration<br \/>\nCertificate in respect of the five trucks belonging to Dashrathsingh<br \/>\nGohil, one of the partners of the firm, but no other material was<br \/>\nsubmitted along with the tender papers to show that Dashrathsingh<br \/>\nGohil had thrown his trucks in the common stocks of the partnership<br \/>\nfirm. We find considerable substance in the objection raised by the<br \/>\nCorporation that production of xerox copies of registration<br \/>\ncertificates of trucks in the name of a partnership firm was not<br \/>\nsufficient compliance with the tender conditions. The submission<br \/>\nurged by Mr.Shelat for the petitioner that in such cases, partnership<br \/>\ndeed need not indicate or describe the assets of the partnership<br \/>\nfirm, may not be considered as unreasonable but at least some<br \/>\nauthenticated document ought to have been produced with the tender<br \/>\npapers to show that Dashrathsingh Gohil had thrown the trucks in<br \/>\nquestion in the common stocks of the partnership firm. A mere<br \/>\nstatement by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner firm<br \/>\nstating that these trucks were available to the partnership firm was<br \/>\nnot sufficient to bind Dashrathsingh Gohil.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner submits that Dashrathsingh Gohil<br \/>\nis now prepared to submit on affidavit that the trucks will be<br \/>\ntreated as common stocks of the partnership firm. That could not be<br \/>\naccepted at this stage in the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nparticularly in view of the fact that monsoon has already set in<br \/>\nBhavnagar region and there would be definite urgency for the FCI to<br \/>\nsee that the contract awarded by the Corporation to respondent No.3<br \/>\ngets implemented at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tWhile<br \/>\ndismissing the petition, we record the statement made by Mr.Pahwa,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 agrees to<br \/>\ncarry out the contract  at 86% SOR as against 95% above SOR which was<br \/>\nthe rate previously offered by respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNotice<br \/>\nis discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.S. SHAH, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) <\/p>\n<p>Hitesh<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008 Bench: Mohit S. D.H.Waghela, D.H.Waghela SCA\/1057\/2008 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1057 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&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-6387","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 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\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-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=\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T18:21:20+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T18:21:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1421,\"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\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T18:21:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 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\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T18:21:20+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T18:21:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008"},"wordCount":1421,"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\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008","name":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T18:21:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashapura-vs-food-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashapura vs Food on 30 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/6387","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=6387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}