{"id":64564,"date":"2010-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-08T02:58:26","modified_gmt":"2016-10-07T21:28:26","slug":"shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13301\/2008\t 2\/ 9\tORDER \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. 13301 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================\n \n\nSHREE\nKRISHNAKESHAV LABORATORIES LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nGM JOSHI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/08\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThis<br \/>\nCourt on 02.05.2010 passed the following order :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t Heard<br \/>\nMr. G.M.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.J.Shah,<br \/>\nlearned AGP for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. S.N.Pahwa, learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge order<br \/>\npassed by the respondent No.1 making reference to Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\nfor adjudication of the dispute mentioned therein and also<br \/>\nsimultaneously prohibiting lock-out. The petitioner has also<br \/>\nchallenged the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of assuming that<br \/>\nthere is a lock-out and the lock-out is illegal and the same should<br \/>\nbe prohibited.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAffidavits<br \/>\nand counter affidavits have been filed by the respective parties. An<br \/>\naffidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 supporting and<br \/>\njustifying the order of reference. Likewise, the respondent No.3<br \/>\nunion has also filed reply affidavit supporting the action of the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner has filed counter affidavit in<br \/>\nresponse to the said reply affidavits by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Joshi has appeared for the petitioner and submitted that as per the<br \/>\nscheme of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as  the Act ), before making order or<br \/>\ndirection prohibiting lock-out, there must be an existing dispute \/<br \/>\nreference and only if such reference is existing before the date on<br \/>\nwhich it proposes to prohibit the lock-out then only, order<br \/>\nprohibiting lock-out can be made. He submitted that the date on which<br \/>\nthe impugned order came to be passed, no reference \/ dispute was<br \/>\npending and that therefore, order \/ direction prohibiting the<br \/>\nso-called lock-out could not have been and should not have been<br \/>\npassed. He submitted that since this fundamental and primary<br \/>\nrequirement has been overlooked while making order of reference, the<br \/>\nimpugned order is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Joshi further submitted that the impugned order is also bad for the<br \/>\nreason that it is made on presumption that there is a lock-out<br \/>\ncoupled with another presumption that the alleged lock-out is<br \/>\nillegal. Subsequently, particularly in view of order dated 24.2.2009,<br \/>\nMr. Joshi gave-up his contention to the effect that the order is bad<br \/>\nbecause it assumes that the so-called lock-out is illegal as the<br \/>\nappropriate government has, by the said order dated 24.2.2009,<br \/>\namended the earlier order of reference  and has dropped the word<br \/>\n illegal . Thus, the sting of element of presumption about<br \/>\nillegality is taken-off the text of order of reference. Mr. Joshi has<br \/>\nalso raised objection that the sponsoring union is not a majority<br \/>\nunion. Another contention raised by Mr. Joshi against the impugned<br \/>\norder of reference is that the order of reference does not reflect<br \/>\ncorrect and complete dispute between the parties and that in view of<br \/>\nthe text, scope &amp; language of the order, the petitioner employer<br \/>\nwill not be in a position to raise contention or defence on the<br \/>\nground that the employees were on strike. He submitted that in<br \/>\nsupport of his submission, Mr. Joshi has relied upon the judgments of<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble  Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration, Delhi<br \/>\nV\/s. Workmen of Edward Keventers &amp; Another reported in 1978<br \/>\n(1) SCC 634 and in the case of<br \/>\nMoolchand Kharati Ram Hospital K. Union V\/s. Labour<br \/>\nCommissioner &amp; Another reported<br \/>\nin 2002 (10) SCC 708.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCountering<br \/>\nthe submissions, Mrs. Pahwa submitted that the employees were never<br \/>\non strike and in fact, the employer was compelling the employees to<br \/>\nsign an undertaking (she referred to the documents at pages 14 to 42)<br \/>\nwhich compelled the employees to admit that they were on illegal<br \/>\nstrike. Obviously, the workmen would not sign such an undertaking.<br \/>\nThe workmen, she submitted, were therefore not allowed to join their<br \/>\nduties. She submitted that the petitioner employer informed the<br \/>\nemployees that unless they signed the said undertaking, they will not<br \/>\nbe allowed to resume their work. She submitted that in view of such<br \/>\naction of the petitioner, complaint was made on 3.7.1978 by the union<br \/>\nto the office of respondent No.2 informing about the afore-situation<br \/>\nand at that time there was no claim by the petitioner that the<br \/>\nemployees were on strike. She submitted that the allegation that the<br \/>\nemployees were on strike is an afterthought which has been raised by<br \/>\nthe petitioner at a later stage. Mrs. Pahwa relied upon the judgment<br \/>\nof this Court in the case of Swastik Textile Engineering Private<br \/>\nLimited V\/s. Rajendrasingh Santsingh reported in 1984 (1) GLR<br \/>\n470 to substantiate her submission that the workmen cannot be<br \/>\nasked to give an undertaking which tentamounts to admission that they<br \/>\nwere on strike.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShe<br \/>\nemphatically also submitted that considering the scheme of the Act,<br \/>\nit is not impermissible for the appropriate government to prohibit<br \/>\nthe lock-out while making the order of reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAny<br \/>\nother contentions have not been raised by either sides. So far as<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, Mr. Shah, learned AGP submitted<br \/>\nthat except what is stated in the affidavit, there is no other<br \/>\nsubmission to be made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nlight of the conflicting submissions made by both the sides and<br \/>\nparticularly in light of the contentions raised with regard to scope<br \/>\nof Section 10(3), the petition requires to be considered in detail<br \/>\nhence, RULE.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo<br \/>\nfar as prayer for interim relief is concerned, the Court is conscious<br \/>\nof the fact that if the interim relief as prayed for is granted, it<br \/>\nwould stall the entire reference proceedings and therefore,<br \/>\nat the outset, it was inquired from the learned AGP as to whether the<br \/>\nappropriate government is considering or proposing to make<br \/>\nappropriate amendment in the order of reference so as to reflect the<br \/>\ncorrect and complete dispute between the parties. However, as noticed<br \/>\nabove, learned AGP has merely made one submission that the respondent<br \/>\nNos.1 and 2 have nothing to say except what is stated in the<br \/>\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo<br \/>\nfar as the affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, a glance<br \/>\nat the said affidavit shows that the concerned officer of the<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 has arrived at a conclusion or framed an opinion that<br \/>\nthere was no strike. This is an assertion of fact by the respondents<br \/>\nNo.1 and 2 which echos the claim of respondent No.3 union also. On<br \/>\nthe other hand, the petitioner claims that at the relevant time<br \/>\nstrike was resorted to by the workmen and in support of the said<br \/>\nsubmission Mr. Joshi relied upon the document at page 60 of the<br \/>\npetition which is a statement recorded by the GLO on 15.7.2008. On<br \/>\nthe basis of the said statement, Mr. Joshi submitted that  the<br \/>\nworkmen were not reporting for duty in concerted manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Pahwa on the other hand, while relying upon the document at page 59,<br \/>\nwhich is a statement by workman recorded by the GLO, submitted that<br \/>\nthere is nothing in the statement (or in any other contemporaneous<br \/>\nmaterial) which would show that the workmen were on strike. In view<br \/>\nof the submissions and counter submissions by the contesting parties<br \/>\nwhat emerges is that there is diagonally opposite stand between the<br \/>\nparties inasmuch as the petitioner employer claims that there was a<br \/>\nstrike while the workmen claim that actually they have been<br \/>\nlocked-out and they have not been allowed to report for duty. At the<br \/>\nleast, such stand of both the sides constitutes  industrial<br \/>\ndispute  between the parties. When the order of reference is made<br \/>\nit ought to be such which would reflect the correct and complete<br \/>\ndispute between the parties so that the parties can lead appropriate<br \/>\nevidence and defence on the basis of the order of reference. It is<br \/>\nsettled position that the terms of reference defines the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the tribunal to adjudicate particular dispute referred by virtue<br \/>\nof the order of reference. Hence, the order of reference and its<br \/>\nterms are very crucial for both the sides as well as for the tribunal<br \/>\nto ascertain the scope of adjudication and also to frame issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\npresent case, it prima facie appears that there is a dispute between<br \/>\nthe parties on the point as to whether they were on strike or not<br \/>\nand\/or whether there was strike or lock-out. It is claimed that such<br \/>\ndispute is not clearly spelt-out in the order of reference and that<br \/>\ntherefore, the petitioner claims, the order of reference is<br \/>\ndefective. It is also urged that if the proceedings are allowed to<br \/>\nproceed on the basis of the order of reference as it stands, the<br \/>\npetitioner apprehends that it will not be able to lead proper defence<br \/>\nand the scope of the tribunal to frame issues would be, to that<br \/>\nextent, get truncated and the petitioner may not be in position to<br \/>\nlead appropriate evidence. Whether this would be a position or not is<br \/>\na matter which is required to be considered likewise the scope of<br \/>\nauthority under Section 10(3) also requires consideration. Hence,<br \/>\nwhile making Rule returnable on 25th<br \/>\nJune, 2009 with direction that the matter will be heard<br \/>\nperemptorily, the operation of the order of reference is stayed by<br \/>\nway of interim relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe meanwhile, it would be open for the appropriate government to<br \/>\nconsider the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the<br \/>\norder of reference mainly the objection that in its present form and<br \/>\nlanguage the impugned order of reference does not reflect the<br \/>\ncomplete dispute between the parties. If after considering the said<br \/>\naspect appropriate government considers it appropriate to amend the<br \/>\norder of reference, it may do so and place on record of present<br \/>\npetition so that necessary orders can be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>             In<br \/>\nview of above, State Government to clarify whether Reference is<br \/>\nmodified or any fresh order is passed or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tStand<br \/>\nover to 06th September, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.S.Jhaveri,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>satish<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13301\/2008 2\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13301 of 2008 ========================================= SHREE KRISHNAKESHAV LABORATORIES LTD &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================= [&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-64564","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>Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - 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\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-07T21:28:26+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\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T21:28:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1608,\"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\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T21:28:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shree vs State on 23 August, 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":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - 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\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-07T21:28:26+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\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T21:28:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010"},"wordCount":1608,"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\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010","name":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T21:28:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-vs-state-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shree vs State on 23 August, 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\/64564","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=64564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}