{"id":70907,"date":"2008-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-06T06:35:26","modified_gmt":"2019-02-06T01:05:26","slug":"standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/29217\/2007\t 10\/ 10\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. 29217 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 29218 of 2007\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSTANDARD\nMATERIAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGAJJAR\nMUKESH AMRUTLAL &amp; 2 - Respondents\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSA DESAI for Petitioner : 1, \nMR TR MISHRA for\nRespondent: 1, \nMS VS PATHAK AGP for Respondent: 2, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Respondent:\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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has filed SCA 29217 of 2007 challenging the order dated<br \/>\n\t16.7.2007 rejecting the delay condonation application, for seeking<br \/>\n\tcondonation of delay occurred in preferring the restoration<br \/>\n\tapplication No. 275 of 2005, which was made in Recovery Application<br \/>\n\tbeing Recovery Application No. 240 of 2002 in Recovery Application<br \/>\n\tNo. 1962 of 2001, and prayed for direction to the learned labour<br \/>\n\tcourt to rehear the Recovery Applications 1962 of 2001 and 240 of<br \/>\n\t2002 and restraining the respondents from attaching and disposing<br \/>\n\toff the property mentioned therein,  in Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tNo. 29128 of 2007, the petitioner has challenged the order dated<br \/>\n\t30.7.2007 passed in Misc. Application No. 135 of 2005 rejecting the<br \/>\n\tapplication for restoration in Reference [LCAD] No. 46 of 2002. As<br \/>\n\tthe parties in both the proceedings are common, both the matters<br \/>\n\twere heard together and are being disposed of by this common<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts<br \/>\n\tin brief deserve to be set out as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\trespondent workmen were constrained to prefer Recovery Application<br \/>\n\tbeing Recovery Application No. 1962 of 2001 under Section 33 (c)(2)<br \/>\n\tof the I.D.Act  as their wages from April to June 2001 were not paid<br \/>\n\tby the petitioner. The appropriate Labour Court after affording<br \/>\n\tenough opportunity to the petitioner for appearing and defending its<br \/>\n\tstand ultimately had to pass an ex parte order on and award on<br \/>\n\t10.10.2001 allowing the same. As the petitioner herein above did not<br \/>\n\tcomply with the order dated 10.10.2001 made in Recovery Application<br \/>\n\tno. 1962 of 2001 the respondent herein workmen had to file one more<br \/>\n\tRecovery Application being Recovery Application no. 240 of 2002<br \/>\n\tunder Section 33 (c ) (1) for recovering their dues as awarded by<br \/>\n\tthe Court in Recovery Application no. 1962 of 2001 which was also<br \/>\n\tallowed ex parte vide order dated 26.02.2002 as despite due service<br \/>\n\tof notices and opportunity no one appeared for the opponent i.e the<br \/>\n\tpresent petitioner.  The petitioner therefore filed Restoration<br \/>\n\tApplication being MCA 275 of 2006 in Recovery Application no. 240 of<br \/>\n\t2002 in Recovery Application no. 1962 of 2001 and prayed for delay<br \/>\n\tcondonation as the application for restoration was filed after<br \/>\n\tpassage of considerable time.  The Labour Court vide the impugned<br \/>\n\tOrder dated 16.07.2007 has rejected the same The Respondent No.2 has<br \/>\n\tstarted proceedings for recovering the dues based upon the Recovery<br \/>\n\tCertificate issued by the Labour Court being aggrieved therewith the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has preferred SCA 29217 of 2007. The Respondent Workmen<br \/>\n\thad also raised Industrial Disputes with regard to non payment of<br \/>\n\ttheir terminal dues despite the promises by the petitioner vide<br \/>\n\ttheir Notice to Workmen at the relevant time and it proceeded with<br \/>\n\tclosure of the unit without following due procedure of law. The<br \/>\n\tReference being Reference (LCA-D) no. 46 of 2002 came to be accepted<br \/>\n\tand allowed, after recording that though sufficient opportunities<br \/>\n\twere given, none turned up on behalf of the employer and hence, the<br \/>\n\tsaid ex-parte award was being passed vide Order dated 15.03.2005. As<br \/>\n\tit was allowed ex parte the present petitioner filed Restoration<br \/>\n\tApplication being MCA No. 135 of 2005 which also came to be rejected<br \/>\n\tby the Labour Court vide its Order dated 30.07.2007 wherefrom arises<br \/>\n\tSCA No. 29218 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tDesai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that<br \/>\n\tas the employer petitioner was unable to meet with its legal dues<br \/>\n\tfrom Bank, the Bank had attached the properties of the Company and<br \/>\n\tthe Company had remained closed thereafter. Shri Desai has pointed<br \/>\n\tout from the order of the Labour Court impugned in these proceedings<br \/>\n\tthat sometimes even registered AD notices had remained un-served and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, it was not proper for the labour Court to reject the<br \/>\n\tapplication of the petitioner. Shri Desai has submitted that the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court&#8217;s findings with regard to petitioner approaching the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court with suppression of facts is also finding recorded<br \/>\n\tcontrary to the evidence on record and therefore, same finding<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri Desai has submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe petition deserves to be allowed as the petitioner could not<br \/>\n\tattend the Court on account of circumstances beyond their control.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tDesai further submitted that the property sought to be attached<br \/>\n\tcannot be attached as the owners are different. The respondent no. 2<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be directed not to attach\u00e9 the property as<br \/>\n\tmentioned in the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tMishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workmen<br \/>\n\tvehemently opposed both the petitions and submitted that these<br \/>\n\tpetitions deserve to be rejected as the suppression of facts, which<br \/>\n\thas been recorded by the Labour Court, has been perpetuated even in<br \/>\n\tthese Special Civil Applications before this Court. In fact, the<br \/>\n\tworkmen were constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 9124<br \/>\n\tof 2001, wherein, this Court while relegating the workmen to the<br \/>\n\talternative remedy, observed in order dated 27.12.2001 in para-8<br \/>\n\twith regard to anxiety of the workmen and their apprehension with<br \/>\n\tregard to nonpayment of dues and company s surreptitious attempts<br \/>\n\tof removing the machinery from the company s premises. It deserved<br \/>\n\tto be noted that thus, the workmen and the employer were pursuing<br \/>\n\ttheir dispute and company did have knowledge of workmen being<br \/>\n\trelegated to alternative remedy. Therefore Company s so called<br \/>\n\tlack of knowledge of proceedings before labour court was merely a<br \/>\n\tfa\u00e7ade for its default in appearing before the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tMishra has taken this Court through the notice pasted by the Company<br \/>\n\titself in respect of their so called closure and promised to the<br \/>\n\tworkmen to pay the dues, which were admissible to them. Shri Mishra<br \/>\n\thas also brought to the notice of the Court the notice dated<br \/>\n\t31.10.2001, which was issued by the Company to the security guard<br \/>\n\twith regard to non acceptance of the posts, correspondences etc. and<br \/>\n\tnot to disclose the residential address to the process server. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has only denied them only in its rejoinder. Shri Mishra<br \/>\n\thas submitted that in view of this, petitions deserve to be rejected<br \/>\n\twith costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tMishra further submitted the respondent no.2 may proceed against any<br \/>\n\tproperty wherein the employer company has its interest. But it is<br \/>\n\tfor the respondent no.2 to decide the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt has heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused<br \/>\n\tthe papers and gone through the orders impugned in these matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be noted at this stage that the petitioner has not<br \/>\n\tchallenged the Ex Parte Award dated  15.03.2005 passed in Reference<br \/>\n\t(lCA-D ) No.46 of 2002 and only challenged Order dated 30.07.2007<br \/>\n\tpassed in Restoration Application being MCA 135 of 2005. In absence<br \/>\n\tof any challenge to the main award the challenge to the order dated<br \/>\n\t30.07.2007 is to be examined in SCA 29218 of 2007.   The Petitioner<br \/>\n\thas not moved the Restoration Application in prescribe time limit<br \/>\n\tand not filed any Delay Condonation application seeking condoning of<br \/>\n\tdelay that had occurred in preferring MCA 135 of 2005 in Reference<br \/>\n\t46 of 2002. The Labour Court has elaborately discussed the reasons<br \/>\n\tfor not accepting the same. It deserves to be noted that the<br \/>\n\treasoning applicable for examining the challenge in SCA 29317 of<br \/>\n\t2007 would also be applicable in examining the challenge in SCA<br \/>\n\t29218 of 2007.  The entire approach of the petitioner before the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court in both the proceedings betrays not only callousness<br \/>\n\tbut also lack of regards to the Labour Adjudication Machinery as<br \/>\n\tcould be seen from the following discussion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tundisputed facts go to show that the petitioner Company did have<br \/>\n\tknowledge of the workmens&#8217; demand and disputes as the order in<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 9124 of 2001 dated 27.12.2001 clearly<br \/>\n\tindicate that the Company was represented through its advocate and<br \/>\n\tthe order goes to show that Company did have knowledge with regard<br \/>\n\tto the lis between itself and its workers. Against this back<br \/>\n\tdrop as well as the notice which Company pasted on 25.9.2001 with<br \/>\n\tregard to payment of dues and terminal benefits to its work force,<br \/>\n\tand the notice to watchmen not to accept notices and not to disclose<br \/>\n\tits residential address to process servers deals serious blows to<br \/>\n\tits stand that it did have no knowledge especially when right before<br \/>\n\tfew days ago they were party to the proceedings in special civil<br \/>\n\tapplication in this court wherein the present petitioner was<br \/>\n\trepresented by advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>Against<br \/>\n\tthis backdrop the impugned orders deserve to be examined.  The<br \/>\n\tLabour Court has elaborately recorded its findings with regard to<br \/>\n\tissuance of process and its service upon the Company. Only at the<br \/>\n\tlater stage, there is a mention with regard to one registered AD not<br \/>\n\tbeing served, but in the same line, the Labour Court has recorded<br \/>\n\tthat subsequently, the notice, which was issued, was served by<br \/>\n\tbailiff personally, and that cannot be ignored. The Labour Court has<br \/>\n\tfurther recorded that the dues of the workmen have been evaded<br \/>\n\tdeliberately and even the Labour Court has recorded to the effect<br \/>\n\tthat the petitioner has evaded and avoided to pay the legitimate<br \/>\n\tdues of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcursory glance at the application made before the Labour Court<br \/>\n\tseeking restoration would in itself be sufficient to reject these<br \/>\n\tpetitions as it would clearly reveled the absolute casual approach<br \/>\n\twhich was adopted by the petitioner before the Labour Court during<br \/>\n\tpendency of the Reference and same had been continued even while<br \/>\n\tmaking restoration application as the same is bereft of any material<br \/>\n\twhatsoever, which would be sufficient to have been finally relied<br \/>\n\tupon seeking discretion of the Court under Rule 26A of the ID<br \/>\n\tGujarat Rules. The petitioner s   applications made before the<br \/>\n\tlabour court are so very bereft of necessary pleadings and<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence that labour could had to reject the same as the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner could not prove its assertion with any material on<br \/>\n\trecord. The non mentioning of attachment dates, non productions of<br \/>\n\tnecessary documents in support therewith and in action for such a<br \/>\n\tlong time coupled with the fact that petitioner did know that this<br \/>\n\tCourt had in fact relegated the respondents to alternative remedy<br \/>\n\tunder ID Act were sufficient to deal serious blow to its theory.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tassertion and averments made in these two petitions are not forming<br \/>\n\tpart of the two application and hence the petitioner s reliance<br \/>\n\tthereupon could be of no avail to them as under Article 227 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution. The fact of non service of notice has not been<br \/>\n\tbelieved by the labour court and this court under article 227 would<br \/>\n\tnot interfere with such findings in absence of any cogent evidence<br \/>\n\tproduced before the labour court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\torders impugned are to be examined in light of the jurisdiction<br \/>\n\tunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court is of<br \/>\n\tthe considered view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any<br \/>\n\tinfirmity warranting interference. Therefore, both the petitions<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be dismissed and they are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Though<br \/>\n\tthe petitions are being dismissed a direction is required to the<br \/>\n\tRespondent No.2 to afford opportunity to the petitioner for<br \/>\n\tindication as to in which property the employer company has interest<br \/>\n\tand which property are absolutely not attachable being in no way<br \/>\n\tconnected or affiliated to the employer petitioner.  It goes without<br \/>\n\tsaying that recovery proceedings cannot be held against personal<br \/>\n\tproperty and it would be laying only against the property of<br \/>\n\tEmployer and the property wherein the said employer has some<br \/>\n\tinterest or stake to that extent. The Respondent No.2 is at liberty<br \/>\n\tto effect recovery from the property of the Employer or the property<br \/>\n\twherein the employer it interest or share to that extent.  Notice<br \/>\n\tdischarged in both the matters. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Registry<br \/>\n\tis directed to keep the copy of this judgment in Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 29218 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>pallav<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/29217\/2007 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29217 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29218 of 2007 ========================================================= STANDARD MATERIAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. &#8211; Petitioner Versus [&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-70907","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>Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 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\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-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=\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-06T01:05:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-06T01:05:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1907,\"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\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-06T01:05:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 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":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 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\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-06T01:05:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-06T01:05:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008"},"wordCount":1907,"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\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008","name":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-06T01:05:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-vs-gajjar-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Standard vs Gajjar on 13 October, 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\/70907","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=70907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}