{"id":79491,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-19T04:08:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T22:38:59","slug":"the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\nCOMA\/390\/2008\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nAPPLICATION No. 390 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 157 of 1997\n \n\nIn\nCOMPANY PETITION No. 156 of 1997\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nTHE\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION CITY OF AHMEDABAD - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAHMEDABAD\nMANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING COMPANY LTD., &amp; 11 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMEHTA, NANAVATI &amp; NANAVATI for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMS AMEE\nYAJNIK for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) : 2 - 4, 6,8 - 10. \nMR BHARAT JANI for Respondent(s)\n: 5, \nMR KI SHAH for Respondent(s) : 7, \nMR DS VASAVADA for\nRespondent(s) : 11, \nMR NIRAJ SONI, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n12, \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Present<br \/>\n\tJudges Summons has been taken out by the applicant- Ahmedabad<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Corporation for an appropriate order directing the<br \/>\n\tOfficial Liquidator of M\/s.Ahmedabad Manufacturing &amp; Calico<br \/>\n\tPrinting Mills Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) to sale  Calico Dome<br \/>\n\tsituated at Relief Road, Ahmedabad which is the asset of the Company<br \/>\n\tin liquidation at the price that may be fixed by this Court. It is<br \/>\n\talso further prayed to direct the Official Liquidator of the Company<br \/>\n\tin liquidation to execute the necessary conveyance of the said asset<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  in favour of the applicant upon the applicant<br \/>\n\tdepositing with him the sale price of the said  Calico Dome<br \/>\n\tthat may be fixed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time,<br \/>\n\twhen the Judges Summons was taken out, it was the case on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that with an intention to create<br \/>\n\tawareness amongst the citizens and to develop a comprehensive plan<br \/>\n\tfor conservation of wall city of Ahmedabad, established a separate<br \/>\n\tHeritage Cell headed by Municipal Commissioner and under his<br \/>\n\tleadership a team of Deputy Municipal Commissioner and other senior<br \/>\n\tofficers of the Corporation. At the relevant time,  Calico Dome<br \/>\n\twas not declared as Heritage Property and even the necessary<br \/>\n\tHeritage Regulations were also not framed under the provisions of<br \/>\n\tGujarat Town Planning Act. It was also submitted that at the<br \/>\n\trelevant time, the Corporation has undertaken a project for<br \/>\n\trestoration of  Calico Dome  and for that purpose, the<br \/>\n\tCorporation has sanctioned Rs.20 Lacs. It was also further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat Corporation would be an appropriate Authority to take care of<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  as heritage building. It was the case on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe applicant that therefore, Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Corporation approached the Official Liquidator of the<br \/>\n\tCompany in liquidation to sale the said  Calico Dome  on<br \/>\n\treasonable amount that may be fixed. However, the same was not<br \/>\n\tmaterialized as the Official Liquidator was asking for a market<br \/>\n\tprice. That thereafter, this Court passed an order directing the<br \/>\n\tCorporation to deposit a sum of Rs.30 Lacs to show their bona-fide<br \/>\n\tand the Official Liquidator was directed to handover the possession<br \/>\n\tof the  Calico Dome  to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation,<br \/>\n\tpending the determination of the amount to be paid towards the sale<br \/>\n\tconsideration of the  Calico Dome , it has already deposited Rs.<br \/>\n\t30 Lacs and the possession is already handed over to the<br \/>\n\tCorporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tappears that there was some dispute with respect to the valuation of<br \/>\n\tthe  Calico Dome  and\/or with respect to the amount to be paid<br \/>\n\tby the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation towards the sale<br \/>\n\tconsideration of the said  Calico Dome  and according to the<br \/>\n\tOfficial Liquidator, the market valuation of the  Calico Dome<br \/>\n\twas approximately  Rs.1,20,00,000\/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty<br \/>\n\tLacs only) and so far as the Corporation is concerned, it was<br \/>\n\tapproximately Rs.25 to Rs.30 lacs. Therefore, this Court directed<br \/>\n\tthe State Government to have the valuation of the  Calico Dome<br \/>\n\tand submit the report before this Court. As per the valuation report<br \/>\n\tof the State Government, the valuation \/ market value of the  Calico<br \/>\n\tDome  would be approximately Rs.52,10,000\/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs<br \/>\n\tand Ten Thousand Only).\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tSaurin Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Nanavati and<br \/>\n\tNanavati for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has submitted that as<br \/>\n\tsuch, in view of Heritage Regulation,  Calico Dome  is declared<br \/>\n\tas the Heritage Property and as such, no development and\/or other<br \/>\n\tactivities is permissible in the property in question without prior<br \/>\n\tpermission of the concerned Department. It is submitted that as<br \/>\n\tsuch, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation wants to restore the  Calico<br \/>\n\tDome  to its original and therefore, as such, the same would be in<br \/>\n\tthe larger public interest and in the interest of citizens of<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad. It is submitted that therefore, as such, the property of<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  cannot be equated with other properties of the<br \/>\n\tCompany in liquidation for the purpose of market value, etc. and the<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  is required to be considered as a distinct and<br \/>\n\tspecial property. It is submitted that in-fact looking to the<br \/>\n\tpurpose for which, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation wants  Calico<br \/>\n\tDome , even the said property can be given to the Corporation at<br \/>\n\ttoken price. It is further submitted that still as the Corporation<br \/>\n\thas already deposited the amount of Rs.30 Lacs, therefore, it is<br \/>\n\trequested to consider a sum of Rs.30 Lacs as reasonable price with<br \/>\n\trespect to  Calico Dome  and therefore, direct the Official<br \/>\n\tLiquidator to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of Ahmedabad<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Corporation on the aforesaid sale consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ms.Amee<br \/>\n\tYagnik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Official<br \/>\n\tLiquidator has submitted that as such, the Official Liquidator<br \/>\n\tcannot give consent and therefore, it is requested to pass an<br \/>\n\tappropriate order which deem just and proper. However, she is not in<br \/>\n\ta position to dispute that the  Calico Dome  belonging to the<br \/>\n\tcompany in liquidation cannot be equated with other properties of<br \/>\n\tcompany in liquidation and it has a distinct value and the property<br \/>\n\twhich is declared as Heritage Property, therefore, it is requested<br \/>\n\tto pass an appropriate order which deem just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similarly,<br \/>\n\tlearned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective respondents<br \/>\n\thave also requested to pass an appropriate order which deem just and<br \/>\n\tproper looking to the peculiar  facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\n\tand fact that  Calico Dome  is already declared as Heritage<br \/>\n\tProperty and more particularly, when  Calico Dome  is to be used<br \/>\n\tas Heritage Property and the Corporation is to restore the  Calico<br \/>\n\tDome  to its original.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties<br \/>\n\tat length.\n<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted and which cannot be disputed<br \/>\n\tthat  Calico Dome  has its own importance and value. It is also<br \/>\n\tnot in dispute that now the  Calico Dome  is already declared as<br \/>\n\tthe Heritage Property under the Regulation framed by the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planing Act<br \/>\n\twhich are also known as Heritage Regulation under the GDCR. Once the<br \/>\n\tproperty is declared as heritage, there are restrictions on<br \/>\n\tdevelopment and re-development \/ repairs, etc. Thus, on declaration<br \/>\n\tof the  Calico Dome  as Heritage Property as such, the same<br \/>\n\tcannot be used and\/or developed by anybody and everybody has to act<br \/>\n\ton the advice of the Heritage Conservation Cell. Therefore,<br \/>\n\tconsidering the status of the  Calico Dome  it cannot be<br \/>\n\tcompared with other properties of the Company in liquidation and for<br \/>\n\tthe purpose of market price, etc. as it has its own value. Even<br \/>\n\tconsidering the request made by the Corporation through their<br \/>\n\tCommissioner they want  Calico Dome  as the Corporation wants to<br \/>\n\trestore to  Calico Dome  to its original. Therefore, in the<br \/>\n\tpeculiar facts and circumstances of the case and purpose for which,<br \/>\n\tthe Corporation wants  Calico Dome  property of the company in<br \/>\n\tliquidation, which is in the larger public interest, it appears to<br \/>\n\tthe Court that on payment of Rs.30 Lacs (which is already paid), the<br \/>\n\tOfficial Liquidator may be directed to execute Conveyance Deed in<br \/>\n\tfavour of Corporation with respect to the  Calico Dome  with<br \/>\n\tcertain terms and conditions which the learned advocate appearing on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the Corporation has agreed to fulfill and comply.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under<br \/>\n\tthe circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\n\tnarrated herein above, Official Liquidator of the company in<br \/>\n\tliquidation is hereby directed to execute the sale deed \/ conveyance<br \/>\n\tdeed in favour of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation with respect<br \/>\n\tto  Calico Dome  for a value \/ sale consideration of Rs.30 Lacs<br \/>\n\twhich the Corporation has already deposited. Said exercise shall be<br \/>\n\tcompleted within a period of 4 weeks from today.  Ahmedabad<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, is hereby<br \/>\n\tdirected to use the  Calico Dome  only for the purpose of<br \/>\n\tmaintaining the  Calico Dome  and is hereby directed to restore<br \/>\n\tthe  Calico Dome  to its original within a period of 1 year from<br \/>\n\ttoday and submit the report before this Court. Municipal<br \/>\n\tCommissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, to file an<br \/>\n\tundertaking before this Court to the effect that on execution of the<br \/>\n\tsale-deed \/ conveyance deed in favour of the Corporation of the<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  as stated above, the Corporation shall restore the<br \/>\n\t Calico Dome  to its original within a period of 1 year from<br \/>\n\ttoday and same shall not be used for any other purpose other than<br \/>\n\tthe  Calico Dome  meaning thereby, there shall not be any other<br \/>\n\tactivities inclusive of Commercial Activities. Even otherwise, once<br \/>\n\tthe  Calico Dome  is declared as Heritage, same cannot be used<br \/>\n\tfor any other purpose. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to get<br \/>\n\tproperty for restoring the  Calico Dome  to its original. The<br \/>\n\tCorporation to obtain an appropriate permission from the appropriate<br \/>\n\tauthority at the earliest. As agreed by Shri Mehta, learned advocate<br \/>\n\tappearing on behalf of the Corporation, if it is found that  Calico<br \/>\n\tDome  is not restored to its original within a stipulated time as<br \/>\n\tstated herein above, and\/or within an extended period, if any,<br \/>\n\tand\/or if it is used for any other purpose, in that case, an<br \/>\n\tappropriate order can be passed to return the  Calico Dome  to<br \/>\n\tthe Official Liquidator which can be considered in accordance with<br \/>\n\tlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>With<br \/>\n\tthis, present company application is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>(ashish)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print COMA\/390\/2008 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY APPLICATION No. 390 of 2008 In COMPANY PETITION No. 157 of 1997 In COMPANY PETITION No. 156 of 1997 ========================================================= THE MUNICIPAL [&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-79491","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>The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 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\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T22:38:59+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\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T22:38:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1566,\"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\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T22:38:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 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":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 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\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T22:38:59+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\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T22:38:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":1566,"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\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010","name":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T22:38:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-ahmedabad-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs Ahmedabad on 9 April, 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\/79491","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=79491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}