{"id":98358,"date":"2008-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-23T19:23:23","modified_gmt":"2017-03-23T13:53:23","slug":"arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: J.R.Vora,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&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\nFA\/4771\/2006\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 4771 of 2006\n \n\n \n \n=====================================================\n \n\nARUNABEN\nKANTILAL PATEL & 2 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAMIN\nAHMAD KADODIYA & 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n===================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR H.S.MULIA for Appellant(s) :\n1 - 3. \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 J.R.VORA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA)<\/p>\n
1.\tThis
\nFirst Appeal is preferred by the original claimants against the
\njudgment and award delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(Auxi.), 4th Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, on
\n11th August, 2006 in MAC Petition No. 34\/2002, wherein,
\nclaimants were awarded an amount of Rs. 9,58,000\/- with running
\ninterest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the application till
\nrealisation for the death of Kantibhai Dayabhai Patel in a motor
\naccident on 28.12.2001 within the limits of Kamrej Police Station
\nnear village Pardi and Sugar Factory.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAccording
\nto the brief facts, the original respondent no. 1 was driving the
\nvehicle bearing No. GTX   8587 rashly and negligent, which was a
\ntruck and caused accident, in which, Kantibhai Dayabhai Patel died.
\nAppellant no. 1   ori. Claimant is widow, while appellants no. 2
\nand 3 -ori. Claimants no. 2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSo
\nfar as negligent aspect is concerned, the Tribunal came to the
\nconclusion that original opponent no. 1 – driver Amin  Ahmad Kadodiya
\nwas negligent  in driving the vehicle and caused accident. However,
\nthis conclusion is not subject matter of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\njudgment and award in this appeal, mainly challenged on the ground of
\nquantum of compensation. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Mulia for the
\nappellant was heard in detail  in this respect and has provided
\npaper-book as well. His main grievance is that the Tribunal has erred
\nin considering the salary income of the deceased to Rs. 48,00\/-,
\nwhich is, undoubtedly, basic pay only. Before the Tribunal, pay-slip
\nwas produced by the claimants and was exhibited at ex. 51, from the
\noffice of the deceased wherein he was serving as Work Assistant in
\nP.W.D. Department. A witness Shahid Husein Ganilal,  at Ex. 49, has
\nalso been examined and accordingly, it has been established  that at
\nthe time of accident, deceased was getting total salary of Rs. 7628\/-
\nand not Rs. 4800\/- because Rs. 4800\/- was basic pay and over and
\nabove this, the deceased was also getting Rs. 1968\/- towards Dearness
\nAllowance, Rs. 100\/- Medical Allowance, Rs. 660\/- P.T.A. and Rs.
\n100\/- towards Special Family Planning Pay, totalling to Rs. 7628\/-
\nand considering this income and considering prospective income of
\nsalary, average income would have been assessed at Rs. 9000\/- and
\ndependency at Rs. 10,000\/- after considering agricultural income.
\nHowever, instead, the Tribunal considered dependency only at Rs.
\n5900\/- because the Tribunal erred in taking into account other
\nallowances with the basic pay of the deceased at the time of death,
\nand hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn
\ngoing through the record, it appears that the Tribunal has considered
\nRs. 4800\/- as income of the deceased per month and Rs. 1000\/- income
\nfrom agricultural land, totalling to Rs. 5800\/-. Thereafter, the
\nTribunal also considered prospective income and came to the
\nconclusion that the prospective income of the deceased could be
\narrived at Rs. 5900\/- from the salary income, while prospective
\nagricultural income was considered by the  Tribunal at Rs. 1500\/- per
\nmonth and after adding this amount of Rs. 1500\/- in Rs. 5900\/-, the
\nprospective income, in all, was considered by the Tribunal of the
\ndeceased to the extent of Rs. 74,00\/- per month. 1\/3 amount was
\ndeducted as pocket expenses and after awarding 15 multiplier, the
\nassessment was arrived at by the Tribunal  that on account of
\ndependency benefit the claimants were entitled to  an amount of Rs.
\n8,88,000\/-,  on account of loss of estate (expectation of life) an
\namount of Rs. 50,000\/-, towards transport and other funeral expenses
\nan amount of Rs. 5000\/-, towards loss of consortium an amount of Rs.
\n15000\/- to claimant no. 1. The Tribunal, in all, awarded Rs.
\n9,58,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nmust be taken note of that the damage for vehicular accident are in
\nthe nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to a
\nperson. In any case,  victim of the vehicular accident be injured or
\ndependents of deceased must be awarded just and reasonable
\ncompensation but compensation should not be windfall  for the victim
\nor bonanza. It  should be just and reasonable compensation from all
\ncorners.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTrue
\nit is that, the Tribunal did not take gross salary  income of the
\ndeceased in consideration as income from salary head, which was,
\naccording to the appellants   claimants  was to the tune of Rs.
\n7628\/. When we assess the case and the compensation to be awarded
\noverall, we found that even if we take the salary income of the
\ndeceased at Rs. 7628\/- per month and even after considering the
\nprospective income, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal
\nis just and proper and no interference would be required. This is so
\nbecause the  Tribunal erred while considering the overall income and
\ngross salary of the deceased, at the same time, Tribunal has also
\nerred in assessing the agricultural income of the deceased to the
\ntune of Rs. 15,00\/- per month. The deceased was full time employee
\nand could not have contributed towards agricultural land  as to even
\nassess his supervisory dependency to the extent of Rs. 1500\/- and,
\ntherefore, overall, dependency benefit awarded by the Tribunal to the
\nextent of Rs. 8,88,000\/- appears to us to be just and reasonable.
\nThis is more so that the claimants are awarded 15 multipliers,
\nwherein, undoubtedly, deceased aged 41 years, as the date of birth of
\nthe deceased proved to be 1.4.1960 vide ex. 28, the Tribunal,
\naccording to us,  erred in this arena also as the proper multipliers
\nto be awarded in this case ought to be 9 to 10 only and not 15
\nmultiplier, which, in our view, awarded by the Tribunal as a windfall
\nto the claimants. We are fortified in this respect by the decision of
\nthe Apex Court in the matter of The  A.P. State Road
\nTransport Corporation vs. M. Ramadevi,<\/a> reported in 2008(1)
\nSupreme 566, wherein, the Supreme Court was pleased to award 12
\nmultiplier for the deceased who was aged 40 years.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThus,
\naccording to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, when
\nthe Tribunal erred in not taking the gross salary as salary income of
\nthe deceased, at the same time, the Tribunal also erred in
\nconsidering the agricultural income of the deceased at Rs. 1500\/- per
\nmonth and applying multiplier of 15. In these circumstances,
\nbalancing the assessment, we feel that no enhancement, at all, is
\nrequired in compensation as prayed for in this appeal. Though there
\nis no appeal filed by the Original respondents and, therefore, no
\nquestion arises to interfere in respect of quantum of damage as
\nawarded by the Tribunal for the agricultural income and in respect of
\nmultiplier awarded. But when just and reasonable assessment is
\nundertaken, we came to a definite conclusion that in no case the
\ncompensation already awarded for the death of Kantibhai Dayabhai
\nPatel is required to be enhanced.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, this appeal stands summarily dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(J.\n<\/p>\n
R.  VORA, J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008 Author: J.R.Vora,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/4771\/2006 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4771 of 2006 ===================================================== ARUNABEN KANTILAL PATEL & 2 – Appellant(s) Versus AMIN AHMAD KADODIYA & 2 – Defendant(s) […]<\/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-98358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 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\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-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=\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-23T13:53:23+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T13:53:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1170,\"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\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T13:53:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 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":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 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\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-23T13:53:23+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T13:53:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008"},"wordCount":1170,"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\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008","name":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T13:53:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunaben-vs-amin-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arunaben vs Amin on 22 September, 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\/98358","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=98358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}