{"id":81094,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-13T03:41:22","modified_gmt":"2017-11-12T22:11:22","slug":"whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\nITR\/1\/1998\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 1 of 1998\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 2 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 3 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 4 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 5 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 7 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 9 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 12 of 1998\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 13 of 1998\n \n\n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \n\n \n\n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ \t\t\tSd\/- \n \n\n\n \n\n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA \tSd\/-\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n====================================\n<\/pre>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
YES<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
To
\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
====================================<\/p>\n
THE
\nC.I.T. – Applicant<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
SANTOKBEN
\nKANJIBHAI PATEL – Respondent<\/p>\n
====================================
\nAppearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nMANISH R BHATT, Sr. Standing Counsel for Applicant.
\nMR SN
\nSOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
====================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 23\/09\/2008
\nCOMMON CAV JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, Ahmedabad has
\n\treferred to the following question of law for the opinion of this
\n\tCourt, under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1956 (for short
\n\t‘Act’) for A.Y. 1981 ?  82 in all the reference applications filed
\n\tby the revenue, which gave rise to the present Income-tax
\n\treferences.  Since identical question is involved in all the
\n\tIncome-tax references, for the sake of convenience, the question is
\n\treproduced from I.T.R. No. 01 of 1998 and facts are also taken from
\n\tthe said reference.  The question is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that
\nshare income of the assessee as a beneficiary from M\/s. Bharat Trust
\n\/ Navbharat Trust, Norma Trust should be assessed on substantive
\nbasis ?\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\trespondent in all these references are beneficiaries of main Trust,
\n\tnamely, M\/s. Bharat Trust and M\/s. Navbharat Trust.  The assessees
\n\tdeclared beneficial income in the returns filed as per allocation
\n\treceived from the main Trust.  The Assessing Officer in the
\n\tidentical assessment orders passed in the cases of all the present
\n\tassesseees noted that income as declared in the hands of the main
\n\tTrust has been taxed at the maximum marginal rate and accordingly,
\n\twithout prejudice to the assessments made in the cases of main
\n\tTrust, he made the assessments in the present cases of beneficiaries
\n\ton the returned income on protective basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\n\tappeal, first Appellate Authority found that appeals in the cases of
\n\tmain Trust came up before him for A.Y. 1981 ?  82 for consideration
\n\tand in his appellate order, he held that since the beneficiaries as
\n\twell as their share in the main Trust were known and specified in
\n\tthe Trust Deed, the provisions of Section 164 were not applicable
\n\tand accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to assess the
\n\tincome of the main Trust in the hands of the beneficiaries on
\n\tsubstantive basis at an appropriate rate and as a consequence, the
\n\tfirst Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to assess
\n\tthe present beneficiaries on substantive basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\n\tthe Tribunal, it was pointed out that the appeals in the cases of
\n\tmain Trust i.e. Bharat Trust and Navbharat Trust have since been
\n\tdecided by the Tribunal in their orders for A.Y. 1981 ?  82 and the
\n\tTribunal came to the conclusion that all the beneficiaries of the
\n\tsaid Trusts were known and their shares were determinate and the
\n\tincome of the Trust has to be computed and apportioned in terms of
\n\tthe provisions of Section 161 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and
\n\ttheir income cannot be subjected or brought to tax at the maximum
\n\tmarginal rate under Section 164 (1) of the Act.  It has, therefore,
\n\tbeen contended on behalf of the assessee that the income of the main
\n\tTrust having been allocated amongst the beneficiaries as per Section
\n\t161 (1) of the Act, income received in the hands of the
\n\tbeneficiaries deserve to be assessed on substantive basis.  In this
\n\tview of the matter, the Tribunal upheld the order of the first
\n\tAppellate Authority in the cases of the beneficiaries involved.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince
\n\tthe reference has been made in the cases of the main Trust i.e.
\n\tBharat Trust and Navbharat Trust to this Court at the instance of
\n\tthe revenue separately, the Tribunal had made references to this
\n\tCourt in the cases of beneficiaries also so as to maintain
\n\tconsistency.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring
\n\tthe pendency of these references, the main Trust had settled the
\n\tdispute under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS).  It was the
\n\tdepartment’s case that income belongs to the main Trusts and not to
\n\tthe beneficiaries and especially for this reason, incomes were
\n\tassessed substantively in the case of main Trusts and protectively
\n\tassessed in the case of beneficiaries. When main Trusts settled the
\n\tdispute under KVSS and paid due taxes, that was the end of the
\n\tdispute between the department and main Trusts.  The assessments on
\n\tthe taxability of income in the case of main Trusts were made on
\n\tsubstantive basis and hence, the protective assessments made in
\n\tother cases including beneficiaries of same Trust should be deleted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tquestion arose before the Court earlier while dealing with Tax
\n\tAppeal Nos.188 of 2001 to 228 of 2001 and this Court vide its order
\n\tdated 30.07.2001 dismissed all the tax appeals filed by the revenue
\n\tholding therein that no question of law, much less a substantial
\n\tquestion of law, arose in the said appeals. It is a settled
\n\tprinciple that one particular income cannot be taxed in the hands of
\n\tdifferent assessees. The Court observed that since such income has
\n\tbeen substantively assessed in the hands of the main Trust, the same
\n\tincome cannot be again assessed in the hands of the beneficiary.
\n\tHowever, another Division Bench of this Court wherein one of us (K.
\n\tA. Puj, J.) was a party did not agree with the view taken by the
\n\tearlier Division Bench and admitted Special Civil Application No.
\n\t7110 of 2002 with Special Civil Application No.7244 to 7257 of 2002
\n\ton 14.08.2002 and passed an order that having regard to the order
\n\tdated 30.07.2001 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in
\n\tTax Appeal Nos.188 to 228 of 2001, with which the subsequent
\n\tDivision Bench was not inclined to agree, the petitions were ordered
\n\tto be listed before a larger Bench after obtaining appropriate
\n\torders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant
\n\tto the said order, Full Bench was constituted and vide its order
\n\tdated 17.09.2003, the Full Bench took the view that the appropriate
\n\tcourse appeared to be that the petitioners may approach the Tribunal
\n\tby way of application for refusing and\/or modifying the orders of
\n\tthe Tribunal, raising new contentions on the basis of the material
\n\twhich they could not earlier bring on the record of the Tribunal in
\n\tall these matters.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe meantime, each one of beneficiaries of the main Trust have moved
\n\tan application before the Assessing Officer claiming refund of the
\n\tamount paid and the said applications were allowed by the Assessing
\n\tOfficer.  The Commissioner of Income-tax took up the said
\n\tproceedings under Section 263 (1) and vide his order dated
\n\t12.03.2003, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under
\n\tSections 154 (1), 154 (2) of the Act on 22.08.2000 were held to be
\n\terroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.  The said
\n\torders were cancelled and the Assessing Officer was directed to
\n\trecompute the income and withdraw the refund along with the interest
\n\tpaid thereon with reference to such income.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese
\n\torders passed under Section 263 were challenged before the
\n\tIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal had quashed and set
\n\taside the said orders.  The Tribunal held that the orders passed by
\n\tthe Assessing Officer were not erroneous but on the other hand, were
\n\tjust and proper.  Since there was no error in the orders of the
\n\tAssessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax had no
\n\tjurisdiction to invoke Section 263 and pass the revisional orders
\n\tcontested therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing
\n\taggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue has filed
\n\tTax Appeals before this Court and all the tax appeals were disposed
\n\tof by this Court on 26.06.2008.  From amongst these tax appeals, the
\n\tassessees of the present references are also covered. A detailed
\n\tchart showing the name of the assessee, assessment year, ITR number,
\n\tname of the main Trust and corresponding Tax Appeal number is
\n\tfurnished during the course of hearing of these references.  The
\n\tsame is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Sr. No.<\/p>\n
Name<\/p>\n
Asst.\n<\/p>\n
Year<\/p>\n
ITR No.<\/p>\n
Name of Main Trust<\/p>\n
High
\n\t\t\t\tCourt Tax Appeal No.<\/p>\n
01.<\/p>\n
Santokben
\n\t\t\t\tKanjibhai Patel.\n<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Navbharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1659<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006.\n<\/p>\n
02.<\/p>\n
Khodidas
\n\t\t\t\tVandas Pateel OSDFT<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Bharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1757<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006.\n<\/p>\n
03.<\/p>\n
Shantaben
\n\t\t\t\tKarshanbhai Patel<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Bharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1599<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006<\/p>\n
04.<\/p>\n
Ramesh
\n\t\t\t\tUdaykumar Baraiya<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Norma
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
614<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2007<\/p>\n
05.<\/p>\n
Ratanben
\n\t\t\t\tHargovandas Patel OSDFT <\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Navbharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1630<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006<\/p>\n
06.<\/p>\n
Jamnaben
\n\t\t\t\tU. Baraiya<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Bharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
597<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2007<\/p>\n
07.<\/p>\n
Hitesh
\n\t\t\t\tJoitaram ODFT<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Navbharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1794<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006<\/p>\n
08.<\/p>\n
Manjulaben
\n\t\t\t\tP. Patel<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
12<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Bharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
1638<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2006<\/p>\n
09.<\/p>\n
Jamnaben
\n\t\t\t\tU. Baraiya OSDFT<\/p>\n
81-82<\/p>\n
13<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 1998<\/p>\n
Bharat
\n\t\t\t\tTrust<\/p>\n
596<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\tof 2007<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe above view of the matter, it was ocntended on behalf of the
\n\trespondent ?  assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the
\n\tearlier decision of this Court and hence, this Court should dispose
\n\tof the present references by holding that since the income has
\n\talready been taxed in the hands of the main Trust and taxes have
\n\talso been paid by the main Trust, the income taxed in the hands of
\n\tthe beneficiaries ?  originally on protective basis should be
\n\tdeleted and to that extent, the present references are to be allowed
\n\tby holding that the Tribunal was not right in law and on facts in
\n\tholding that share income of the assessee as a beneficiary from
\n\tM\/s. Bharat Trust and Navbharat Trust should be assessed on
\n\tsubstantive basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\n\tagainst the submission of the respondent ?  assessee, it was
\n\tcontended on behalf of the revenue that simply because the main
\n\tTrusts have settled their dispute under KVSS, it does not become
\n\tautomatically the income of the main Trust.  The orders passed by
\n\tthe first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal directing to assess
\n\tthe income in the hands of the beneficiaries on substantive basis is
\n\tjust and proper.  By taking advantage under KVSS and by paying the
\n\ttax at a lesser amount, the group as a whole has taken the refund of
\n\tCrores of Rupees which cannot be permitted in law.  Submission is,
\n\ttherefore, made that the reference may be decided accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tcontention is also urged before the Court that if this Court cannot
\n\ttake a contrary view than the view taken by the earlier Bench, the
\n\tmatter may be referred to the larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\tOnce
\n\twe have thought to accept this alternative contention of the revenue
\n\tand to refer the matter to the larger Bench, since we have our own
\n\treservations. However, in view of the fact that the revenue is
\n\tcontemplating to challenge the judgment and order passed by the
\n\tearlier Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on receipt
\n\tof the certified copy of the said judgment and order, no useful
\n\tpurpose would be served in referring these matters to the larger
\n\tBench.  Hence, with a view to maintain judicial propriety and since
\n\tearlier Division Bench has already taken a view that once an income
\n\tis finally assessed in the hands of main Trusts and taxes are
\n\taccordingly paid, though under KVSS, the same income cannot be now
\n\ttaxed either protectively or otherwise, we follow the said decision,
\n\tin view of the fact that the revenue is going to challenge the said
\n\tjudgment and order of the earlier Division Bench of this Court
\n\tbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Though various authorities were
\n\tcited before us by the learned Counsels appearing for both sides,
\n\tsince the same were cited before the earlier Division Bench and were
\n\tduly considered, we deem it fit not to repeat the same here in this
\n\tjudgment.  We, accordingly, answer the question referred to in all
\n\tthese references in negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and
\n\tagainst the assessee and hold that the Appellate Tribunal was not
\n\tright in law and on facts in holding that share income of the
\n\tassessee as a beneficiary from M\/s. Bharat Trust \/ Navbharat Trust,
\n\tNorma Trust should be assessed on substantive basis.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll
\n\tthese references are accordingly disposed off without any order as
\n\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[RAJESH H. SHUKLA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
Savariya<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print ITR\/1\/1998 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 1 of 1998 WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 2 of 1998 INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 3 of 1998 […]<\/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-81094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-12T22:11:22+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T22:11:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2039,\"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\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T22:11:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-12T22:11:22+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T22:11:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2039,"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\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008","name":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T22:11:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-santokben-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs Santokben on 14 July, 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:\/\/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\/81094","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=81094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}