{"id":82778,"date":"2011-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-30T03:50:31","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T22:20:31","slug":"regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nOJCA\/267\/2010\t 17\/ 17\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 267 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 81 of 2009\n \n\nIn\nCOMPANY APPLICATION No. 65 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nREGIONAL\nDIRECTOR (WESTERN REGION) - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRELIANCE\nPETROLEUM LIMITED & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPS CHAMPANERI for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nNANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, \nMR VISHWAS K SHAH\nfor Respondent(s) : 3, \nMR HEMANG M SHAH for Respondent(s) :\n4, \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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tpresent application has been preferred by the Regional Director
\n\t(Western Region), seeking correction in the appearance on behalf of
\n\tthe applicant in the orders dated 8.7.2009, 17.7.2009 and judgement
\n\tdated 22nd\/29th July 2009 passed by this Court
\n\tas well as the appearance of the advocate on behalf of the applicant
\n\tat paragraph 15 in the judgement dated  22nd\/29th
\n\tJuly 2009 passed by this Court.  It may be recorded that four
\n\tcompanies\/persons have been impleaded as parties namely; (1)
\n\tReliance Petroleum Limited; (2) Mr.Rasiklal S. Mardia; (3)
\n\tMr.Shailesh Prabhudas Mehta; & (4) Mr.V.M. Raste.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 3, and 4 have
\n\tdeclared before the Court that they have no objection if the
\n\tcorrection as prayed for is carried out. However, Mr.Rasiklal
\n\tMardia, who is appearing as party-in-person, has resisted to the
\n\tpresent application by filing the affidavit dated 21st
\n\tSeptember, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tunder these circumstances, Mr.P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant
\n\tSolicitor General and Mr.Rasiklal Mardia are heard by the Court for
\n\tthe final disposal of the present application.\n<\/p>\n
Reference
\n\tto the relevant record of the main proceedings and the order passed
\n\ttherein shall be made to hereinafter, but it deserves to be
\n\tmentioned that as per the practice prevailing in the High Court of
\n\tGujarat, even on the original side like the proceedings of the
\n\tCompany Petition, rojnama of
\n\tthe proceedings is neither being
\n\tprepared, nor the motion of application for adjournment is being
\n\trecorded every time, nor the learned Counsel or the party or either
\n\tparty are required to submit any written application for adjournment
\n\tof the proceedings, unlike in the trial Court conducting the suit in
\n\tthe original side under C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis hardly required to be stated that whenever any matter is heard,
\n\tmay be for some time, but unless it is culminated into orders of the
\n\tCourt in the concerned proceedings, they are all to be considered as
\n\tineffective hearing.  It is in this light and background the present
\n\tapplication for correction is to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcontention on behalf of the applicant is that Shri Harin P. Raval,
\n\tthe then Assistant Solicitor General, representing the applicant,
\n\twas appointed as Additional Solicitor General of India vide
\n\tNotification dated 6.7.2009 of the Government of India and he took
\n\tover the charge of the office on 6.7.2009 and he left the country on
\n\t7th
\n\tJuly, 2009 by evening flight and came back to India on 15.7.2009.
\n\tShri Harin P. Raval thereafter stayed at Ahmedabad on 15th
\n\tand 16th
\n\tJuly, 2009, but did not attend the Court and thereafter, he left for
\n\tDelhi on 19.7.2009.  It has been further stated that thereafter,
\n\tShri Raval never came back to Ahmedabad till 28.7.2009 when his
\n\tfather was admitted into hospital and returned back to 30th
\n\tJuly, 2009 to Delhi.  It has also been stated by the applicant that
\n\tShri Raval has continuously appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme
\n\tCourt of India in the matters of Government of India from 20.7.2009
\n\tonwards.  Under these circumstances, in the title of the judgement
\n\tas well as at paragraph 15, the name mentioned of Shri Harin P.
\n\tRaval be corrected and it is also prayed that the appearance shown
\n\tin the title of the order dated 8.7.2009, 17.7.2009 may also be
\n\tcorrected.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas
\n\tMr.Rasiklal Mardia, who has appeared as party-in-person before this
\n\tCourt mainly raised the contention as stated in the
\n\taffidavit-in-reply namely; that there is no authorization to file
\n\tthe present application and it has been contended that the Registrar
\n\tof Companies is acting in collusion with Shri Raval.  It is also
\n\tsubmitted that no letter is filed by Shri Raval supporting
\n\tthe said application and the affidavit is by the clerk working in
\n\tthe office of Shri Hiran P. Raval at Ahmedabad and it was submitted
\n\tthat there is no authorization to Mr.P.S. Champaneri, learned
\n\tAssistant Solicitor General of India to file the present application
\n\ton behalf of the applicant Registrar of Companies or the Regional
\n\tDirector (Western Region) and it was submitted that the application
\n\tbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tdeserves to be recorded that prior to the filing of the present
\n\tapplication, Shri Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General of
\n\tIndia had submitted a note for speaking to minutes by a letter to
\n\tthe Registrar General of Gujarat High Court duly signed by him,
\n\tseeking correction in the orders dated 8.7.2009 and 17.7.2009 and
\n\tthe judgement dated  22nd\/29th
\n\tJuly 2009
\n\tand the same prayer was made as prayed in the present application
\n\tand the said note was filed through Mr.Champaneri, learned Assistant
\n\tSolicitor General of India.  But thereafter the present application
\n\thas been filed.  Therefore, when the said note for speaking to
\n\tminutes came up
\n\tfor consideration on  2.7.2010, following order was passed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“In
\n\tview of the fact that the O.J. Civil Application No.267\/10 has been
\n\tfiled note for speaking to the minutes would not survive.  Note
\n\tdisposed of accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\n\tit is not a matter where Mr.Raval has not prayed the said aspects in
\n\tthe proceedings before this Court or that the deponent of the
\n\tpresent application has stated something contrary, which may vitiate
\n\tthe basis on and behalf of Mr.Raval.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis hardly required to be stated that the position of Standing
\n\tCounsel of the Central Government or the Assistant Solicitor General
\n\tis unlike an individual Advocate, representing a particular client
\n\tby filing his Vakalatnama being an authority appointed for
\n\tsuch purpose and representing the matter.  The Standing Counsel and
\n\tthe Assistant Solicitor General of India, after their appointment,
\n\twould hold continuous authority to appear for Government of India or
\n\tits Department, unless the said Department is having its own panel
\n\tso specifically permitted by the Government of India.  What may be
\n\trequired for the Standing Counsel of the Central Government or the
\n\tAssistant Solicitor General would be the appearance note that he has
\n\tinstructions to appear in the matter.  Whether the Counsel or the
\n\tAssistant Solicitor General of India has, in fact, instruction to
\n\tappear and represent the cause of the Government of India or its
\n\tDepartment is a matter between him and the Government of India or
\n\tits concerned Department and normally this Court is not supposed to
\n\texamine the said aspects, unless the appointment  of the very
\n\tCounsel has been terminated or any cogent material is produced to
\n\tthe contrary.  It is true that in the Company Petition No.81 of
\n\t2009, Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs was party,
\n\trepresenting the Central Government and as per the practice
\n\tprevailing, the Regional Director conveyed the instructions to the
\n\tRegistrar of companies of the State and who, in turn, had passed
\n\tover the instructions to the Counsel of Government of India
\n\trepresenting the matter.  Further, in any case, Mr.Harin P. Raval,
\n\tholding the office as Additional Solicitor General of India, after
\n\t6th July 2009 would be, in any case, a law officer of
\n\tGovernment of India, whose cause can be represented through Regional
\n\tDirector.  Mr.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, in
\n\tany case, has authority to represent any litigation in Gujarat High
\n\tCourt of Government of India or its Department, which would include
\n\tthe Regional Director or the Registrar of Companies or even Mr.Harin
\n\tP. Raval as Additional Solicitor General of India and as the then
\n\tAssistant Solicitor General.  Under these circumstances, it cannot
\n\tbe said that the present application is without there being any
\n\tproper authority of the Regional Director or Shri Raval being the
\n\tlaw officer of Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tdeserves to be recorded that filing of appearance in the proceedings
\n\tbefore this Court and withdrawal and\/or substitution of appearance
\n\tis administrative job to be discharged and considered by the
\n\tRegistry\/office of this Court, in any case, in the matter of title
\n\tgenerated with the help of computer.  It is for the party concerned
\n\tor the Counsel concerned to move the office for substitution of the
\n\tappearance by following requisite procedure and office does it
\n\twithout there being any judicial order of this Court.  However, once
\n\tthe proceedings are concluded by judicial order, such power or
\n\tauthority would not available to the office\/registry of the High
\n\tCourt and under these circumstances, if any such situation arises,
\n\tnote for speaking to minutes may be filed or if there is some
\n\tcorrection in the body of the judgement, the application may also be
\n\tfiled for such purpose.  But be it noted that such a correction, if
\n\tany, is to be made for change of the appearance or otherwise, it is
\n\thaving no impact on the merit or demerit of the matter or can rather
\n\tbe said as independent of the merits of the matter concerned.  It is
\n\tin this light and the background the application is to be further
\n\tconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tdocuments produced do support the application that Mr.Raval after
\n\t6th July 2009 since appointed as Additional Solicitor
\n\tGeneral was not available at Ahmedabad for conducting the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Mardia,
\n\tparty-in-person filed affidavit-in-reply and at paragraph 5 it has
\n\tbeen stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“I
\n\t\tam not disputing the fact that after his appointment as Additional
\n\t\tSolicitor General in the Supreme Court of India, he has not
\n\t\tappeared in this Hon’ble Court.  However, can it be concluded that
\n\t\the has withdrawn himself from the case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\taforesaid makes it clear that even as per Shri Mardia, he admits
\n\tthat Mr.Raval after his appointment as Additional Solicitor General
\n\tin the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not appeared before this Court,
\n\twhich would include his non-appearance in the matter, meaning
\n\tthereby he has not appeared before this Court.  Therefore, the
\n\tdocuments produced before this Court read with the aforesaid
\n\tadmission by the party-in-person,  makes it clear that after 6th
\n\tJuly, 2009, Mr.Raval has not appeared before this Court and,
\n\ttherefore, on the basis of the aforesaid admission, the correction
\n\tas such can be granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tattempt to contend that it cannot be concluded that Mr.Raval had
\n\twithdrawn himself from the case would be beyond the scope of the
\n\tpreset application, inasmuch as the present application is for his
\n\trole, in the matter while conducting the case in this Court and
\n\tconsequently for correction of the order showing his appearance in
\n\tthe Court at the relevant point of time and not for any other aspect
\n\twhich is sought to be agitated by Shri Mardia.  Once a Counsel or
\n\tAdvocate has ceased to appear in the matter before the Court, it is
\n\tto be considered that he has withdrawn himself from the case in
\n\tcapacity as the Counsel or Advocate and, therefore, such aspect is
\n\tnot required to be gone into further in the present application.
\n\tHence, the said attempt cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\n\tas observed earlier on 8.7.2009, since Shri Raval had already
\n\tassumed the office as Additional Solicitor General on 6.7.2009, he
\n\twas physically not available, but in computer generated title his
\n\tname has been continued in the order dated 8.7.2009.  Same thing has
\n\tcontinued in the computer generated title of the order dated
\n\t17.7.2009 as well as in the title of the judgement dated 22nd\/29th
\n\tJuly 2009.  Therefore, such title of the aforesaid three orders
\n\tdeserve to be corrected.  Further since the title of the order and
\n\tthe board of the Court the name was so continued of Mr.Harin P.
\n\tRaval when the Court dictated the order on 22nd \/ 29th
\n\tJuly 2009, at paragraph 15, the observations were made to keep it
\n\topen to the petitioning Company to pay the cost of the Central
\n\tGovernment to Shri Harin P. Raval, but it appears that as on that
\n\tday, the appointment of Shri Harin P. Raval as Additional Solicitor
\n\tGeneral was already known, the further description has been stated
\n\tas “the learned Assistant Solicitor General then, now
\n\tAdditional Solicitor General.”  Therefore, appropriate
\n\tconsequential correction would be called for at paragraph 15 of the
\n\tsaid judgement also.  But so far as the appearance of Iqbal Shaikh
\n\tis concerned, copy of the letter dated 13.7.2009 is produced at page
\n\t83 of the compilation showing instructions issued by the Registrar
\n\tof Companies to him for forwarding the copy of the affidavit and it
\n\tmay be that he might have pursued  the matter thereafter, but it was
\n\tfor him to get his appearance substituted in the computerised title
\n\tof the matter in place of Mr.Raval.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tparty-in-person, Mr.Rasiklal Mardia has contended, inter alia, that
\n\tMr.Raval had appeared before the Court on 2.7.2009 i.e. prior to his
\n\tappointment as Additional Solicitor General and the hearing could
\n\tnot be concluded, but it appears that on 8.7.2009, the following
\n\torder as passed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The
\n\tparties may complete the pleadings or exchange the affidavit, if
\n\tthey so choose, latest by the evening of 13.7.2009.  Matter shall be
\n\tplaced for hearing on 15.7.2009.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThereafter,
\n\tthere was exchange of pleadings also and on 17.7.2009 the effective
\n\thearing had taken place and the Court passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
”\tThe
\narguments are heard in part. The hearing is concluded of the
\npetitioner’s side as well as of three objectors’ side by Mr.
\nV.K.Shah, Mr. Hemang Shah with Mr. Shalin Mehta and Mr. Mardia, who
\nis appearing as party-in-person. Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner
\nstates that he has to give reply. S.O. to 22nd
\nJuly, 2009 at 2:00 O’clock.\n<\/p>\n
\tThereafter
\n\ton 22.7.2009, order has been dictated in part and as the Court time
\n\twas over, it was adjourned to 29.7.2009 in the second sitting for
\n\tfurther dictation and the order has been concluded on that day.
\n\tHence, it can be said that after completion of the pleadings,
\n\teffective hearing would begin, which was concluded by the final
\n\tjudgement in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tmay be recorded that the attempt was made by the party-in-person,
\n\tMr.Rasiklal Mardia to contend that in the SLP before the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court, against the order of the Division Bench of this
\n\tCourt, he has raised the ground about alleged improper approach on
\n\tthe part of the Regional Director and the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tappears that such aspect cannot be gone into in the present matter,
\n\tsince the same would travel beyond the scope of the application.
\n\tFurther, if the merits of the matter and consequential modification
\n\tof the order is to be considered on merits of the case, such may not
\n\tbe permissible, since after the judgement of this Court, the matter
\n\twas carried before the Division Bench and as stated, it has been
\n\tfurther carried before the Apex Court in the SLP and the said SLP is
\n\tpending.  However, but for the fact that it is only a question of
\n\tcorrection of clerical aspects to be generated with the help of
\n\tcomputer and not at all concerning to the merits or demerits of the
\n\tmatter, the present application has been considered for such limited
\n\tpurpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the following
\n\torders:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe
\n\tname of Mr.Harin P. Raval for respondent No.1 in the computer
\n\tgenerated title of the orders dated 8.7.2009 and 17.7.2009 as well
\n\tas in the judgement dated 22nd
\n\t\/ 29th
\n\tJuly, 2009 be deleted.  Further consequently at paragraph 15 of the
\n\tjudgement dated  22nd
\n\t\/ 29th
\n\tJuly, 2009, the sentence “It would be open to the petitioning
\n\tcompany to pay the cost of the Central Government to Mr.Harin P.
\n\tRaval, learned Assistant Solicitor General then, now learned
\n\tAdditional Solicitor General, by ‘Account Payee’ cheque directly.”,
\n\tbe also deleted, leaving it to the Central Government to recover the
\n\tcost from the company concerned in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tIt
\n\tis clarified and observed that the present order shall not be
\n\ttreated as affecting or prejudicing the rights of either party on
\n\tthe merits of the main cause of sanctioning the scheme of
\n\tamalgamation\/merger, which was subject matter of Company Petition
\n\tNo.81 of 2009 disposed of by the judgement dated 22nd
\n\t\/ 29th
\n\tJuly, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tapplication is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 (Jayant Patel, J.)<\/p>\n
vinod<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print OJCA\/267\/2010 17\/ 17 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 267 of 2010 In COMPANY PETITION No. 81 of 2009 In COMPANY APPLICATION No. 65 of 2009 ========================================================= REGIONAL DIRECTOR […]<\/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-82778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRegional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - 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\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-29T22:20:31+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T22:20:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2632,\"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\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T22:20:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 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":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - 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\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-29T22:20:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T22:20:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011"},"wordCount":2632,"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\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011","name":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T22:20:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/regional-vs-reliance-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Regional vs Reliance on 6 April, 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\/82778","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=82778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82778\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}