{"id":83817,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2"},"modified":"2017-11-27T06:26:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-27T00:56:59","slug":"babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3915\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3915 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBABUBHAI\nKASHIRAM RANA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nNAVIN\nFLUORINE INDUSTRIES - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDIPAK R DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Hearned<br \/>\n\tlearned Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is<br \/>\n\tchallenging the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Appellate<br \/>\n\tAuthority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 rejecting the<br \/>\n\tAppeal No. 50 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the order<br \/>\n\tof Controlling Authority dated 24.04.2007 rejecting the application<br \/>\n\tof the petitioner for gratuity from the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfacts in brief, deserves to be set out in detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.03.1999 on<br \/>\n\taccount of his various misconducts including that of<br \/>\n\tmisappropriation of amount of Rs. 7,64,487\/- as mentioned in the<br \/>\n\tdismissal order. The said order was subject-matter of industrial<br \/>\n\tdisputes and the Labour Court, Surat decided the same in Reference<br \/>\n\tNo. 811 of 1999 holding that the order of dismissal was not legal as<br \/>\n\tthe mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(B) of Industrial Disputes<br \/>\n\tAct, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) had not been<br \/>\n\tcomplied with. However, the Labour Court while coming to the<br \/>\n\tconclusion with regard to the legality of the order of dismissal<br \/>\n\timpugned before it, also come to the conclusion and recorded its<br \/>\n\tfindings with regard to the loss of confidence on the part of the<br \/>\n\temployer as the employee was found to be indulging in<br \/>\n\tmisappropriation and thought it fit to award lumpsum compensation in<br \/>\n\tlieu of reinstatement. In other words, the prayer for reinstatement<br \/>\n\twith full back-wages had not been granted by the Labour Court in its<br \/>\n\taward dated 14.10.2004. It deserves to be recorded that both the<br \/>\n\tsides i.e. petitioner as well as respondent employer have accepted<br \/>\n\tthis award and no challenge is lying therefrom to any other forums.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tworkman demanded gratuity as his dismissal order was found to be<br \/>\n\tillegal and he approached the Controlling Authority under the<br \/>\n\tPayment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with an Application No. 124 of 2006<br \/>\n\twhich came to be rejected by the Controlling Authority vide order<br \/>\n\tdated 24.04.2007 as<br \/>\n\tstated here-in-above.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 24.04.2007<br \/>\n\tpetitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under the<br \/>\n\tPayment of Gratuity Act,1972 being Appeal No.50 of 2007 which also<br \/>\n\tcame to be dismissed, by the Appellate Authority on account of<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with those orders the present petitioner has filed<br \/>\n\tpresent petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tDipak R. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has<br \/>\n\tvehemently contended that the order of dismissal having been set<br \/>\n\taside the operation of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in its force<br \/>\n\twould come into play and as per the provisions of Section 4(6) it<br \/>\n\twas a duty cast upon the concerned authority to adjudicate upon the<br \/>\n\tquantum of damage those alleged to have been caused on account of<br \/>\n\tmisconduct warranting his termination. In the instant case, the<br \/>\n\ttermination has been set aside by the Court and therefore, it would<br \/>\n\tnot be open to the respondent to forfeit his gratuity amount U\/s.<br \/>\n\t4(6)(b) as the same have no applicability in light of the judgement<br \/>\n\tof the Labour Court. Shri Dipak R. Dave submitted that the gratuity<br \/>\n\tand its payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been<br \/>\n\tcrystallized to be a statutory right cannot be brushed aside by any<br \/>\n\tauthority. In the instant case, without the charge-sheet being given<br \/>\n\tand without holding an inquiry, the order of dismissal was passed,<br \/>\n\twherein the gratuity amount was forfeited. When straightaway order<br \/>\n\tof dismissal and forfeiture of gratuity was passed without holding<br \/>\n\tan inquiry, a duty was cast upon the employer to afford full<br \/>\n\topportunity to the employee in the inquiry before effecting any<br \/>\n\tforfeiture of gratuity. Admittedly, in this case, there was no<br \/>\n\tinquiry and therefore, when the order of dismissal has been held to<br \/>\n\tbe illegal, the restrictions for releasing gratuity is removed by<br \/>\n\tthe Labour Court and therefore it would not be open to the employer<br \/>\n\tto deny the same. This aspect has not been taken into consideration<br \/>\n\tby the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, to that extent, the orders impugned, deserves to be<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside and the respondent deserves to be directed to<br \/>\n\tpay gratuity amount to the petitioner.  Shri Dipak R. Dave relying<br \/>\n\tupon the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers<br \/>\n\tChemicals Ltd. V\/s. Surendra Amin reported in 2004 (3) GLH page 752<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that no amount of gratuity could be withheld or deducted<br \/>\n\twithout following the provision as mentioned in sub-section (6) of<br \/>\n\tSection 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tDipak R. Dave in furtherance of his submission cited one more<br \/>\n\tauthority in case of Baroda Traders Co-operative Bank Ltd. V\/s.<br \/>\n\tMahendrabhai B. Shah, reported in 2006(2) LLJ 500, and in case of<br \/>\n\tJaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. V\/s. Shri Ram Gopal<br \/>\n\tSharma and ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 643 and in case of Balbir<br \/>\n\tKaur and anr. V\/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., reported<br \/>\n\tin (2000)6 SCC 4923 and contended that the Payment of Gratuity is a<br \/>\n\tbeneficial legislation deserving to be viewed in a proper<br \/>\n\tperspective and when the Labour Court which is competent court to<br \/>\n\tdecide and adjudicate upon the dispute has held that the order of<br \/>\n\tdismissal was absolutely illegal, it was not open to the respondent<br \/>\n\tto deny the gratuity to the petitioner by the Controlling Authority<br \/>\n\tas well as the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity<br \/>\n\tAct,1972.  They therefore committed error in the face of record<br \/>\n\twarranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tK.K.Nanavati, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the<br \/>\n\torder of dismissal contains in unequivocal terms that the amount of<br \/>\n\tgratuity is also forfeited. The order itself was a subject matter of<br \/>\n\tscrutiny before the competent Court wherein both the sides had equal<br \/>\n\topportunity of making submissions in furtherance of their respective<br \/>\n\tcase. The terms of reference also go to show that it was a composite<br \/>\n\tchallenge and therefore the entire order was under challenge before<br \/>\n\tthe Labour Court. The findings of the Labour Court are based on the<br \/>\n\taspect of loss of confidence and petitioners inability to establish<br \/>\n\totherwise as recorded at page 20 of the Award would go to show that<br \/>\n\tunder what circumstances the order of dismissal was held to be<br \/>\n\tillegal though the employee was not found fit to be reinstated. In<br \/>\n\tother words, the prayer for reinstatement had been negatived by the<br \/>\n\tCourt solely based on the aspect of loss of confidence on account of<br \/>\n\taction of misappropriation. The workman has accepted the same<br \/>\n\twithout any demur. He submitted that the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tControlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority suffered<br \/>\n\tfrom no infirmity so as to call for the interference under Article<br \/>\n\t227 of the Constitution of India and therefore matter deserves to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tcourt is of the view that the term of reference deserves to be noted<br \/>\n\twhich contains a specific dispute as to whether the petitioner<br \/>\n\there-in-above the workman was entitled to be reinstated with all the<br \/>\n\tback-wages. In other words, the entire order of dismissal which<br \/>\n\tincorporated in itself the forfeiture of gratuity was a subject<br \/>\n\tmatter of scrutiny before the competent forum. It also deserves to<br \/>\n\tbe noted that both the sides have accepted the order and when the<br \/>\n\torder is accepted and there is no demur with regard to the findings<br \/>\n\tof the Labour Court, the Controlling Authority as well as the<br \/>\n\tAppellate authority were under the duty to take them into<br \/>\n\tconsideration. In fact when the matter was quite at large before the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court and the parties were leading their evidences in support<br \/>\n\tof their respective cases,<br \/>\n\tit was absolutely open to the petitioner to lead evidence with<br \/>\n\tregard to the aspect of forfeiture which was incorporated and which<br \/>\n\twas part of the order impugned, before the Labour Court in the<br \/>\n\treference in question. The Labour Court as could be seen from the<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded and stated here-in-above was absolutely conscious<br \/>\n\tabout not granting any other prayer including reinstatement etc. and<br \/>\n\tdecided to award a composite amount of Rs. 3,50,000\/- in lieu of<br \/>\n\ttheir reinstatement. This Court is unable to accept submission of<br \/>\n\tShri Dipak R. Dave that the termination has not come into play in<br \/>\n\tfact what is set aside  is the order of dismissal which was said to<br \/>\n\thave been passed without complying with the provisions of Section 33<br \/>\n\tof the I.D.Act,1947. But that in itself would not bring any factum<br \/>\n\tof employee to be continued in the service and he would be therefore<br \/>\n\tentitled to other benefits. In-fact there is a finding of the Labour<br \/>\n\tCourt that this petitioner was not fit to be given a relief of<br \/>\n\treinstatement and therefore, the relationship of employer and<br \/>\n\temployee came to an end right when he was dismissed and the entire<br \/>\n\tcase was therefore, open before the Labour Court wherein after<br \/>\n\thearing both the sides, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that<br \/>\n\tthe employee did not deserve to be granted anything more than the<br \/>\n\tlump sum amount of Rs. 3,50,000\/-. In light of these findings of the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court a question arise as to whether it was open to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner even to seek any relief under the Payment of Gratuity<br \/>\n\tAct, 1972. The answer would obviously to be ?SNO??. However<br \/>\n\tlooking to the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as<br \/>\n\tthe Appellate Authority it cannot be said that they suffer from no<br \/>\n\tinfirmity as such and therefore the petition which is filed under<br \/>\n\tArticle 227 deserves to be dismissed. It goes without saying that<br \/>\n\tthe judgement cited at par are absolutely in a different footing and<br \/>\n\tthey have no reliance whatsoever to the facts of the present case<br \/>\n\tand Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any similarity<br \/>\n\tbetween the two establishing a proper nexus with the facts and<br \/>\n\tsimilarity to the case in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid discussions, the petition deserves to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. However there<br \/>\n\twould be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t                      (S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\n\tJ.) <\/p>\n<p>Jyoti<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3915\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3915 of 2008 ========================================================= BABUBHAI KASHIRAM RANA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus NAVIN FLUORINE INDUSTRIES &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK [&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-83817","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>Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-27T00:56:59+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-27T00:56:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1698,\"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\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-27T00:56:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-27T00:56:59+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-27T00:56:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2"},"wordCount":1698,"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\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2","name":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-27T00:56:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-navin-on-7-october-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babubhai vs Navin on 7 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/83817","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=83817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}