{"id":7230,"date":"2011-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-28T14:15:45","modified_gmt":"2017-11-28T08:45:45","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\/22293\/2006\t 14\/ 14\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. 22293 of 2006\n \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\nAHMEDABAD\nMUNICIAPAL TRANSPOR TSERVICE - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMRS.CHANCHALBEN\nSHAMALBHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHS MUNSHAW for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nUNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,\n1.2.3,1.2.4  \nMR HARDIK C RAWAL for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,\n1.2.3,1.2.4\n \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/10\/2007 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Hardik C. Raval for respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\nthe present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed<br \/>\nby Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.725 of 1995 dated<br \/>\n13.1.2006 whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference<br \/>\nand granted the continuity of service  in favour of respondent<br \/>\nworkman and also directed to pay all retirement benefits and from<br \/>\ndate of dismissal till the date of retirement, 20% back wages was<br \/>\ngranted in favour of respondent workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nmatter is at admission stage. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submitted<br \/>\nthat the respondent herein was an employee of petitioner transport<br \/>\nservice and he is working as conductor, was on the duty on 21.1.1991<br \/>\non a Bus bearing Route No.152\/1, in second shift,  about 10.10. p.m.,<br \/>\nreached to Gantral Stand where driver and conductor both have taken<br \/>\nup tea and meanwhile the driver of that bus has permitted one private<br \/>\nperson to drive the bus of AMTS and due to that, serious accident had<br \/>\noccurred. The driver and conductor both have not informed the<br \/>\npetitioner transport service about the said accident either orally or<br \/>\nin writing. Not only that, according to petitioner transport service,<br \/>\nwhen unauthorized person has driven the bus, at that occasion, both<br \/>\ndriver and conductor were on duty and, therefore, the misconduct<br \/>\nwhich has been committed by the driver and the conductor has been<br \/>\nconsidered \/ treated as a joined misconduct by both. It is not the<br \/>\ncase of petitioner transport service that when unauthorized person<br \/>\ndriven the bus, at that occasion the driver and conductor both were<br \/>\nsitting in the bus. But, according to  petitioner transport service,<br \/>\nthe driver has permitted the private person at that occasion the<br \/>\nconductor was also on duty. Thereafter, the accident occurred but<br \/>\nconductor has not informed to the  petitioner transport service<br \/>\neither orally or by giving written communication. Therefore,<br \/>\naforesaid misconduct is considered to be a negligence as per Standing<br \/>\nOrder, Section 25 (H) and for that,  charge-sheet was served to the<br \/>\nrespondent on 20.2.1991 vide Exh.14. The reply was submitted by<br \/>\nrespondent vide Exh.15 dated 2.8.1991. Thereafter, departmental<br \/>\ninquiry was initiated against the respondent and the Inquiry Officer<br \/>\ngave his finding vide Exh.16. Before the Labour Court, the respondent<br \/>\nhas not challenged the legality and validity of departmental inquiry<br \/>\nbut has challenged the finding given by the Inquiry Officer.<br \/>\nAccording to transport service, there  was a damage to the bus to the<br \/>\ntune of more than Rs.2 lacs. The respondent was examined before the<br \/>\nLabour Court vide Exh.11. According to his evidence, one Karansinh,<br \/>\nwho was unauthorized person, was entered into the bus and driven the<br \/>\nbus without any permission from the conductor. Thereafter, bus met<br \/>\nwith an accident and unauthorized person has left the place of<br \/>\naccident. The only allegation against the respondent is that he has<br \/>\nnot informed at the relevant point of time immediately to the<br \/>\ntransport service by telephonic message or by written communication<br \/>\nand, therefore, he was considered to be a co-delinquent of misconduct<br \/>\ncommitted by the driver. The driver is also dismissed from service by<br \/>\nthe transport service. The respondent was dismissed from service on<br \/>\n26.3.1992. The industrial dispute was raised by respondent which<br \/>\nreferred for adjudication in the year 1995. Vide Exh.8 the respondent<br \/>\nhas submitted specific purshis before the Labour Court that<br \/>\nrespondent is challenging only dis-proportionate punishment looking<br \/>\nto the gravity of misconduct and relying upon the aforesaid purshis,<br \/>\nthe Labour Court has framed the issue in Para.5, whether the finding<br \/>\ngiven by Inquiry Officer is baseless and perverse or not and whether<br \/>\nthe punishment imposed by the department is dis-proportionate or not.<br \/>\nThese two issues have been decided by the Labour Court after<br \/>\nconsidering the evidence on record. The Labour Court has considered<br \/>\nthe charge sheet dated 20.2.1991; reply dated 2.8.1991 and finding<br \/>\nvide Exh.16 and ultimately, details of accident narrated in Para.6 by<br \/>\nthe Labour Court. The explanation<br \/>\nhas been given by the respondent that in the winter season as there<br \/>\nwas   too much cold season at night and due to that, respondent was<br \/>\nnot able to give a written communication or phone call to the<br \/>\ntransport service. Even at second day also, the respondent has not<br \/>\ninformed to the petitioner &#8211; transport service. The Labour Court has<br \/>\nconsidered that whether conductor is liable for the accident and<br \/>\nunauthorized driving by Mr.Karansinh or not and whether the bus was<br \/>\nin charge of driver or conductor and who is responsible for<br \/>\nmisconduct. The bus must be in charge of driver and not in charge of<br \/>\nconductor. If driver illegally wants to drive the vehicle even<br \/>\nignoring the direction of conductor, he can and the conductor cannot<br \/>\nstop the driver because the bus is in charge of driver. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe driver should not allow to unauthorized person. When driver has<br \/>\nallowed to unauthorized person then conductor has no place to say no<br \/>\nor he cannot object it because he was not in charge of the bus.<br \/>\nAccording to logbook and log-sheet, the charge of the bus was handed<br \/>\nover to the driver from the work-shop and it was not handed over to<br \/>\nthe conductor. The driver has to maintain the bus and custody<br \/>\nof the bus is also with the driver. Even though the petitioner<br \/>\ntransport service has initiated inquiry against the present<br \/>\nrespondent, who was conductor at the relevant time. No doubt, as an<br \/>\nemployee he was duty bound to inform the transport service about the<br \/>\naccident. For that part, he was negligent and accordingly, that<br \/>\ncharge was proved against the present respondent. For that, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has also believed by giving a reasoning that charge of<br \/>\nnegligence is proved against the respondent but question was examined<br \/>\nby Labour Court that whether looking to the gravity of misconduct of<br \/>\nremaining negligence and not to inform immediately or subsequently to<br \/>\nthe transport service about the accident, punishment of dismissal is<br \/>\njustified or not. On 10.8.1999, when workman was examined vide<br \/>\nExh.11, at that occasion, he was aged about 52 years and thereafter,<br \/>\nthe matter was decided on 13.1.2006. Meanwhile, the respondent<br \/>\nreached the age of superannuation and therefore, the Labour Court has<br \/>\nnot granted reinstatement in favour of respondent workman. The Labour<br \/>\nCourt has come to conclusion while exercising the power under<br \/>\nSection-11A of the I.D.Act,1947 which gives power to Labour Court<br \/>\nwhile adjudicating the dispute where the dismissal is challenged for<br \/>\nadjudication and in the course of adjudication proceedings, the<br \/>\nLabour Court is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal<br \/>\nwas not justified. The Labour Court  may by its award set aside the<br \/>\norder of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the<br \/>\nworkman on such terms and conditions if any as it thinks fit or give<br \/>\nsuch other relief to the workman including the award of any lessor<br \/>\npunishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case may require. Therefore, the Labour Court is having very wide<br \/>\npower and jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as it thinks fit<br \/>\nlooking to the circumstances of the case and also to consider to<br \/>\nimpose any lessor punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case may require. The Labour Court has exercised<br \/>\nthis power while examining the legality and validity of dismissal<br \/>\norder dated 26.3.1992 vide Exh.20. The Labour Court has considered<br \/>\nthat looking to the negligence of not  informing to the transport<br \/>\nservice about the accident and that the bus was driven by<br \/>\nunauthorized person, the punishment of dismissal is unjustified. The<br \/>\ntransport service has not proved gainful employment of the respondent<br \/>\nworkman by leading proper evidence. The evidence of the workman was<br \/>\nthat he remained unemployed during the interim period. According to<br \/>\nevidence of the respondent workman vide Exh.11, as he was dismissed<br \/>\nby transport service, the study of his children has been left without<br \/>\nfurther progress. Therefore, according to conclusion of the Labour<br \/>\nCourt that present respondent is not connected  in any manner with<br \/>\nthe main misconduct which was committed by the driver of the bus, who<br \/>\nhad  permitted to unauthorized person to drive the bus, is a correct<br \/>\nfinding in respect to the issue which has been examined by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt. If the respondent is not connected in any manner with the<br \/>\nmisconduct  committed by the driver then, only considering the<br \/>\nnegligence on the part of the conductor in not informing the<br \/>\ntransport service by telephonic message or written communication, the<br \/>\npunishment of dismissal is apparently harsh and unjustified in light<br \/>\nof the fact that conductor was appointed in the year 1975. The Labour<br \/>\nCourt has not granted the full relief to the respondent workman. The<br \/>\ndate of dismissal is 26.3.1992 and vide Exh.11 when evidence was<br \/>\nrecorded of the respondent workman on 10.8.1999, at that time,<br \/>\nrespondent was aged about 52 years old. Considering the normal age of<br \/>\nretirement as 58 years, the respondent may be retired in the year<br \/>\n2005. He died during the pending reference proceedings on 13.11.2003.<br \/>\nTherefore, the Labour Court has not granted the reinstatement in<br \/>\nfavour of respondent workman and now only question has been<br \/>\nconsidered by the Labour Court that from date of dismissal ?<br \/>\n26.3.1992 to 13.11.2003 when gainful employment is not proved by<br \/>\ntransport service, how much amount of back wages the respondent is<br \/>\nentitled. Considering the fact that negligence is proved against the<br \/>\nrespondent and also considering the fact that in all interim period<br \/>\nis of 11 years, therefore, the Labour Court has denied 80% back wages<br \/>\nfor the interim period to the respondent workman and only granted 20%<br \/>\nback wages of interim period. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw raised<br \/>\nobjection that  the Labour Court should not have to grant the<br \/>\nretirement benefits to the respondent workman. The direction which<br \/>\nhas been issued by the Labour Court granting the retirement benefits<br \/>\nto the respondent workman or legal representatives is merely a normal<br \/>\nand consequential direction. Even without issuing such direction, a<br \/>\nmoment dismissal order is set aside by the Labour Court the transport<br \/>\nservice must have to pay all the retirement benefits. The petitioner<br \/>\ntransport service is the under legal obligation, if the dismissal is<br \/>\nset aside then in that case, the consequential benefits must have to<br \/>\nbe paid to the concerned employee. Therefore, merely some additional<br \/>\ndirection is issued by the Labour Court, which is not necessary, that<br \/>\npart cannot be taken into account by the transport service being an<br \/>\nadditional benefits which has been awarded by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\tI<br \/>\nhave also considered the question of punishment imposed by transport<br \/>\nservice looking to the gravity of misconduct which is found to be<br \/>\nproved. According to my opinion, the punishment of dismissal in such<br \/>\na minor lapse when respondent had not joined hand with driver,<br \/>\nwithout any bad intention,  is a certainly harsh and disproportionate<br \/>\nand shocked the conscience of the Court. The Labour Court has rightly<br \/>\n evaluated the evidence which are on record and considering this<br \/>\nminor lapse, 80% back wages has been denied by way of penalty for<br \/>\nmisconduct is proved against the respondent. Now, the workman has<br \/>\nexpired. The benefit will go to the family members. The Labour Court<br \/>\nhas power to impose penalty while exercising the jurisdiction under<br \/>\nSection 11A of the I.D.Act,1947. This being a discretionary orders<br \/>\npassed by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the I.D.Act,1947. The<br \/>\ndenial of 80% back wages of interim period is amounts to penalty<br \/>\nimposed by the Labour court while exercising the power under Section<br \/>\n11A of the I.D.Act,1947. This Court is having very limited<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These<br \/>\nboth aspects have been considered by Apex Court in case of Jitendra<br \/>\nSingh Rathor v. Shri Baiyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd and anr. Reported<br \/>\nin AIR 1984 SC 976. The  observations made in Para.3 and 4 are<br \/>\nrelevant, therefore, quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>?S3.\n<\/p>\n<p>Wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal under this provision and in<br \/>\na given case on the facts established the Tribunal can vacate the<br \/>\norder of dismissal or discharge and give suitable directions. It is a<br \/>\nwell settled principle of law that where an order of termination of<br \/>\nservice found to be bad and reinstatement is directed, the wronged<br \/>\nworkman is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless for any<br \/>\nparticular reason the whole or a part of it is asked to be withheld.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal while directing reinstatement and keeping the<br \/>\ndelinquency in view could withhold payment of a part or the whole of<br \/>\nthe back wages. In our opinion, the High Court was right in taking<br \/>\nthe view that when payment of back wages either in full or part is<br \/>\nwithheld it amounts to a penalty. Withholding of back wages to the<br \/>\nextent of half in the facts of the case was, therefore, by way of<br \/>\npenalty referable to proved misconduct and that situation could not<br \/>\nhave been answered by the High Court by saying that the relief of<br \/>\nreinstatement was being granted on terms of withholding of half of<br \/>\nthe back wages and, therefore, did not constitute penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.<br \/>\nUnder S. 11A of the Act, advisedly wide discretion has been vested in<br \/>\nthe Tribunal in the matter of awarding relief according to the<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case. The High Court under Art. 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution does not enjoy such power though as a superior court, it<br \/>\nis vested with the right of superintendence. The High Court is<br \/>\nindisputably entitled to scrutinize the orders of the subordinate<br \/>\ntribunals within the well accepted limitations and, therefore, it<br \/>\ncould in an appropriate case quash the award of the Tribunal and<br \/>\nthereupon remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance<br \/>\nwith law and directions, if any. The High Court is not entitled to<br \/>\nexercise the powers of the Tribunal and substitute an award in place<br \/>\nof the one made by the Tribunal as in the, case of an appeal where it<br \/>\nlies to it. In this case, the Tribunal had directed reinstatement,<br \/>\nthe High Court vacated the direction of reinstatement and computed<br \/>\ncompensation of Rupees 15,000\/- in lieu of restoration of service. We<br \/>\nare not impressed by the reasoning of the High Court that<br \/>\nreinstatement was not justified when, the tribunal in exercise of its<br \/>\nwide discretion given under the law found that such relief would meet<br \/>\nthe ends of justice. The Tribunal had not recorded a finding that<br \/>\nthere was loss of confidence of the employer. The job of a librarian<br \/>\ndoes not involve the necessity of enjoyment of any special confidence<br \/>\nof the employer. At any rate, the High Court too did not record a<br \/>\nfinding to that effect. Again there is no indication in the judgment<br \/>\nof the High Court as to how many years of service the appellant had<br \/>\nput in and how many years of service were still left under the<br \/>\nStanding Orders. The salary and other service benefits which the<br \/>\nappellant was receiving also did not enter into the consideration of<br \/>\nthe High Court while computing the compensation. We are, therefore,<br \/>\nof the view that the High Court had no justification to interfere<br \/>\nwith the direction regarding reinstatement to service and in<br \/>\nproceeding to substitute the direction by quantifying compensation of<br \/>\nRupees 15,000\/- it acted without any legitimate basis.??\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid observations made by this Court, after<br \/>\nconsidering the reasoning given by Labour Court and also considering<br \/>\nthat more than 17 years&#8217; service of the respondent conductor and<br \/>\nmisconduct of negligence of the respondent conductor is proved which<br \/>\nis not connected as joined hand with the misconduct of driver in any<br \/>\nway, therefore, in light of  gravity of misconduct the dismissal is<br \/>\nnot justified by the transport service and Labour court is perfectly<br \/>\njustified by setting aside the dismissal order and in  granting only<br \/>\n20% back wages of interim period which comes to about 11 years. The<br \/>\ndenial of 80% back wages is considered to be a penalty to the<br \/>\nrespondent workman for the misconduct of negligence which has been<br \/>\nfound to be proved against the respondent workman. So, according to<br \/>\nmy opinion, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord and rightly examined the issue of punishment as per purshis<br \/>\ngiven by the workman vide Exh.8 and Labour Court has jurisdiction to<br \/>\nexamine the question of punishment while exercising the power under<br \/>\nSection 11A of the I.D.Act,1947 and accordingly, the Labour Court has<br \/>\nrightly exercised the power and set aside the dismissal order which<br \/>\nconsidered to be disproportionate and harsh looking to the gravity of<br \/>\nmisconduct and considering the misconduct of negligence which is<br \/>\nfound to be proved and transport service being public body, rightly<br \/>\nnot granted the full back wages of interim period and rightly denied<br \/>\n80% back wages of interim period being a penalty to the respondent<br \/>\nworkman and rightly awarded 20% back wages of interim period.<br \/>\nOtherwise also, the respondent workman is entitled to all the<br \/>\nretirement benefits as if dismissal order is not passed against him.<br \/>\nAccording to my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error<br \/>\nwhile passing such award which requires interference by this Court<br \/>\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to my<br \/>\nopinion, this being a balance and reasonable award passed by the<br \/>\nLabour Court which does not require interference by this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no<br \/>\nsubstance in the present petition. Accordingly, present petition is<br \/>\ndismissed. Direct service to respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Raval submitted that the widow is without any benefit<br \/>\nsince passing of the  award in the year 2006 and respondent died in<br \/>\nthe year 2003. Therefore, some direction may be issued to the<br \/>\npetitioner, so that the petitioner may implement the award as early<br \/>\nas possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Munshaw submitted that petitioner will make efforts to<br \/>\nsee that as early as the award will be implemented by the petitioner<br \/>\ntransport service and whatever retirement benefits and back wages<br \/>\nwill be paid to the legal heirs and representatives of respondent<br \/>\nworkman.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(vipul)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/22293\/2006 14\/ 14 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22293 of 2006 ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 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-7230","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>Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - 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\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-28T08:45:45+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-28T08:45:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3002,\"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\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-28T08:45:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - 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\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-28T08:45:45+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-28T08:45:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011"},"wordCount":3002,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011","name":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-28T08:45:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-mrs-chanchalben-on-21-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Mrs.Chanchalben on 21 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/7230","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=7230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}