Gujarat High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June 2024 [Citation 1 to 80]
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1-80 ]
M/S AMIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
DHVANIL HEMENDRA RESHAMWALA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1) 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 2
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Versus Montecarlo Construction Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 3
Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya vs State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
PRAVINSINH BAVUBHA ZALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 5
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 6
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 7
Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 8
Pradipbhai Ramanlal Modiya Through Ashwaryaben Harsh Modiya Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 9
Amit Dineshchandra Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 11
Radhika Shankarbhai Pawar Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission (Gpsc) Through Secretary 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 12
Poll Cont Associates vs Narmada Clean Tech Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 13
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 14
Association Of Progressive Retail Liquor Vendors Through President Arvind Vithalsa Miskin Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 15
Chandana Rameshbhai Rupabhai Thro Chandana Rahulkumar Rameshchandra Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 16
Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 17
Shyamlal Rupchand Parwani Versus The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax , Central Circle 1(1) (1) 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 18
Amit Dineshchandra Patel Versus Reserve Bank Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 19
Shyamlal Parag Nathalal Haria Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 20
Bhatt Shaileshbhai Chimanbhai vs State of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 21
Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 22
VIBHAVRIBEN VIJAYBHAI DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 23
Sunil Kumudchandra Rana Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 24
M/S Sai Polyplast Vs Vikas Raj Chhajer 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 25
Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela Versus Union Of India & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 26
Govindbhai Ramjibhai Savani Versus The State Of Gujarat & Ors 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 27
Union Of India & Ors. Versus Dilip Wagheshwari S/O Danabhai Wagheshwari 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 28
Jatinbhai Prafulbhai Kakkad Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 29
Hitesh Prabhudas Lodhiya Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 30
State Of Gujarat Versus Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 31
Vinayakrao Shantilal Desai & Anr. Versus Na 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 32
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 33
Parakramsinh Hathubha @ Hathisinh Jadeja Vs State Of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 34
Daman Wine Merchant Association Through President Versus The State Of Gujarat & Ors 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 35
Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 36
Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 37
Meghrajsinh S/O Manharsinh Chudasma Vs. Meghaviniba W/O Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/O Prahladsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 38
State Of Gujarat Vs Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Koli 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 39
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 40
Chandresh Vasantbhai Malani v. State of Gujarat 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 41
Surya Exim Limited Thro Director Bhawani Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 42
JAYESHBHAI BABULAL VAGHELA & ANR. V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 43
Vijaysingh Meghsingh Chaudhary Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 44
Shiv Crackers Vs Chief Commissioner of CGST & C.E. & Anr. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 45
Amod Anil Bhave Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
Sarvaiya Rajubhai Bachubhai Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
Shankarbhai Rathava & Ors. Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
Bhavdeep Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through Ushaben Natvarbhai Amin & Ors. Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
Bhimnath R Yadav and Ors. Vs Trivedi Crafts Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
M/s Ghakun Steels Pvt Ltd v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Versus M/S Nayara Energy Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Man Industries (India) Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
MOHAMAD IMRAN SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
Director General R.P.F & Ors. Versus Diwan Singh, Bvp (Workshop) 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 55
Jetpur Navagadh Municipality Versus Pathan Yunuskhan Jamyalkhan 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 56
Manilal Manglaji Zariya & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
Range Forest Officer Versus Virjibhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
Shalibhadra Adinath Enterprise and Shalibhadra Apartment Through Member Versus Kanan Maruday Padaram 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 59
Executive Engineer - Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Versus Patel Rasikbhai Rangabhai & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 60
Kiranbhai Harkishandas Patel Alias Kiranbhai Harkishandas Bhandari vs M/S Meet Chetans Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Naran Devashi Meheshwari & Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 63
Kamlesh Jivanlal Dave and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 64
Rajkot Municipal Corporation Versus Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 65
Suo Motu Versus Gujarat National Law University (Gnlu) & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 67
Deputy Collector & Anr. Versus Meera S. Desai & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 68
NEPRA Resources Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
Vimal Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
Dipen Champaklal Shah Vs State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Black Stone Corporation Private Limited Vs State Of Gujarat & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
Jagatsinh Punjesinh Parmar Vs State Of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
State Of Gujarat Versus Himatlal Bhailal Rajgor & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
State Of Gujarat Versus Suhel Ismail Ibrahim Vora Patel 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Ashokbhai Bhurjibhai Mori @ More Versus State Of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
State Of Gujarat Versus Shashikant Gordhanbhai Patel & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Kalpeshkumar Babubhai Turi v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 78 C2R Projects LLP v. Kinetix Solutions Private Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Setco Automotive Ltd. 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 80
Judgements/Orders This Week
Income Tax Act | Section 119(2)(B) Application Cannot Be Rejected Citing Vague & Arbitrary Reasons
Case Title: M/S AMIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has emphasized that applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must not be dismissed arbitrarily, especially when citing the absence of genuine hardship to the petitioner.
The court stated that rejection on merits is unwarranted if the delay in filing the income tax return is not condoned.
The ruling came in response to a petition challenging the order dated 04.10.2023, wherein the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax rejected an application seeking permission for condonation of delay and the filing of an income tax return for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. The due date for the return, which expired on 31.05.2021, saw a delay of 26 days, with the application under Section 119(2)(b) filed on 26.06.2021.
Case Title: DHVANIL HEMENDRA RESHAMWALA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 2
In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has invalidated an Income Tax Assessment Order, citing violations of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The petitioner, an individual assessee, primarily sought the following reliefs:
(A) Petitioning for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order to annul and set aside the contested Assessment order under Section 147 in conjunction with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the Demand Notice under Section 156 dated 30/03/2022.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Versus Montecarlo Construction Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 3
The Gujarat High Court has allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee engaged in developing infrastructure projects like roads, canals, etc.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta has observed that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement and not a work contract.
The respondent or assessee was engaged in the business of construction activity and the development of infrastructure and other projects, i.e., irrigation canals and road construction.
Case Title: Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya vs State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor.
The above ruling came in a writ petition whereby the core issue raised was - 'Who will have the first charge over the property in question i.e. Secured Creditor or the State / Central Government (Crowns debt) on account of non-payment of dues of the Sales Tax department?'
Case Title: PRAVINSINH BAVUBHA ZALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 5
The Gujarat High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by Sanjiv Bhatt, a former Indian Police Service officer, challenging his conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Jamnagar Court in connection with an alleged case of custodial torture and death dating back to 1990.
The incident relates to the death of one Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani in November 1990, which was allegedly due to custodial torture. At the time, Bhatt was the Assistant Superintendent of Police Jamnagar, who, along with other officers, took into custody about 133 persons, including Vaishnani, for rioting during a Bharat Bandh.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 6
The Gujarat High Court has levied a fine of ₹7 lakh on a litigant who failed to actively pursue his public interest litigation (PIL) for seven years.
Dismissing the PIL with costs, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee sternly stated, “When you are filing a PIL, have some kind of responsibility, and accountability. It is not that you file a PIL and then you start dealing with the people. And if you succeed then withdraw it. If you don't succeed, then you pursue it. Don't make it as a tool for your own personal issues.”
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 7
The Gujarat High Court today dismissed a plea filed by the father of two daughters in 2019 accusing self-styled Godman Swami Nithyananda of holding them in unlawful confinement.
The matter was listed before a division bench of Justice AY Kogje and Justice Rajendra M. Sareen.
While the final verdict is pending, Justice Kogje, in the course of the hearing, while dictating the order said, “It was recorded in the preceding para and as recorded in the earlier orders of this court the concern with regards to the well-being of the corpora were to be ascertained and accordingly the Court had declared in its order dated … that the the corpora would be available via a safe link or video conferencing.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Income Tax Department's Search and Seizure, Condemns Misconduct
Case Title: Maulikkumar Satishbhai Sheth vs Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Ahmedabad
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 8
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday, upheld the search and seizures conducted by the Income Tax (I-T) department at a lawyer's residence and office last year over alleged income tax evasion as valid.
The above development came in a petition moved by practicing advocate Maulik Sheth, challenging the manner of search conducted by the I-T officials between November 3 and 7 at his office and residence. He had told the court that documents held by him in his professional capacity were seized during the search operations. The petitioner-lawyer had alleged violation of his fundamental rights, including that of privacy.
Case Title: Pradipbhai Ramanlal Modiya Through Ashwaryaben Harsh Modiya Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 9
Just over two weeks after 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case surrendered at the Godhra sub-jail on January 21 as mandated by the Supreme Court, one of them, Pradip Modhiya, received a five-day parole from the Gujarat High Court following the death of his father-in-law.
Modiya had approached the High Court seeking parole for 30 days.
The prosecution submitted that when Modiya was released on parole, he reported in time before the concerned jail authority, and his jail conduct was also reported to be good.
Case Title: Amit Dineshchandra Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
Recently, the Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen observed that the Lender Banks must provide a reasonable opportunity to the Borrower by furnishing a copy of Audit Reports and allowing him to submit a representation before classifying the account as fraud.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that presently the Respondent violated the principles of natural justice. Thus, it quashed and set aside the Respondent's decision declaring the account of the company as fraud. It remitted the matter and directed the Respondent to furnish the relevant copies of the forensic audit report and supplementary audit report giving reasonable opportunity to submit the representation.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 11
The Gujarat High Court today DISMISSED pleas filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his party's Rajyasabha MP Sanjay Singh challenging a Sessions Court order affirming summons issued against them by a Magistrate Court in a defamation case filed by Gujarat University concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education Degree.
A bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar had reserved its orders in the pleas after hearing both sides on February 2.
Case Title: Radhika Shankarbhai Pawar Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission (Gpsc) Through Secretary
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 12
The Gujarat High Court has issued a directive to the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) instructing them to conduct a separate interview for a woman who recently gave birth, days before her initially scheduled interview. The court has mandated that this interview must be arranged within fifteen days, and the results for one position are to be held until this interview takes place.
In the ruling, Justice Nikhil S Kariel emphasized, “In the considered opinion of this Court, without delving further into the facts, the grievance of the petitioner could be assuaged at this stage by directing the respondent- Public Service Commission to follow their own policy inasmuch as when the Chairman of the Public Service Commission being empowered to consider the case of female applicants, who had either delivered a child or who were pregnant and whose due dates were near about the dates of the interview then, the present would be a fit case, inasmuch, as the petitioner having delivered a child on 31.12.2023 it would have been next to impossible for the petitioner to have attended the interview on 01.01.2024 and 02.01.2024.”
Case Title: Poll Cont Associates vs Narmada Clean Tech Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 13
The High Court of Gujarat single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal allowed a Section 11 application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. It refuted the contention of the Respondent that the dispute had become non-arbitrable because the Petitioner had issued a 'No Claim Certificate' earlier, making the dispute 'stale' in nature.
The bench reiterated that it could only carry on a prima-facie assessment as a general rule of law and the decision on arbitrability lies primarily within the Arbitrator's ambit.
Case Title: Association Of Progressive Retail Liquor Vendors Through President Arvind Vithalsa Miskin Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 15
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to restrain the State police from booking wine shop owners and liquor license holders from Maharashtra under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
The Division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, rejected the PIL filed by the Association of Progressive Retail Liquor Vendors, a Maharashtra-based association of licensed liquor vendors. The court noted that the petition lacked essential documentation, including the registration certificate of the petitioner association.
Case Title: Chandana Rameshbhai Rupabhai Thro Chandana Rahulkumar Rameshchandra Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 16
The Gujarat High Court today granted 10-day parole to one of the convicts in the infamous Bilkis Bano gangrape case, allowing him to attend his nephew's wedding scheduled to take place on March 5.
Chandana moved the HC weeks after 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case surrendered at the Godhra sub-jail on January 21 as mandated by the Supreme Court. Earlier, on February 5, another convict in the case was granted a 5-day parole following the death of his father-in-law.
Gujarat High Court Directs Authorities To Follow Court Orders In IGST Refund Case
Case Title: Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 17
The Gujarat High Court, in its decision on a special civil application, while emphasising the binding nature of its directions on respondent-authorities, stated that once the Court issues directions, they hold authority over the respondent-authorities, and consequently, the respondent-authorities are obligated to adhere to the directions issued by the Court when exercising their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Shyamlal Rupchand Parwani Versus The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax , Central Circle 1(1) (1)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 18
In a judgment with significant implications, the Gujarat High Court has declined to intervene in a case challenging the validity of notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petition challenged the validity of several notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, it challenges a notice dated 09.06.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under Section 153C, as well as an order dated 02.12.2023 which purportedly serves as the respondent No.2's disposal of objections.
Case Title: Amit Dineshchandra Patel Versus Reserve Bank Of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 19
The Gujarat High Court while partly allowing a special civil application has emphasized the importance of lender banks affording borrowers the opportunity to review audit reports and present their case before categorizing an account as fraudulent. The court stressed the need for lenders to provide a copy of audit reports and allow a reasonable window for borrowers to submit representations. Furthermore, the court mandated that lenders must issue a reasoned order addressing any objections raised by the borrower.
Gujarat High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused in Rs. 67.72 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title: Shyamlal Parag Nathalal Haria Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 20
In a notable legal development, the Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Parag Nathalal Haria, who was implicated in an alleged Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud amounting to Rs. 67.72 crores.
The ruling came in an Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with F.No. GEXCOM / AE / INV / GST / 8107 / 2023 - AE / 19.12.2023 registered with Inspector (Anti Evasion), CGST, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1) (c) and 132(1)(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Case Title: Bhatt Shaileshbhai Chimanbhai vs State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 21
Two convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case on Thursday withdrew their petitions, seeking parole for Navchandi and Vaastu puja before the Gujarat High Court as the single judge expressed his disinclination to allow the relief.
When the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Divyesh Joshi, the court orally remarked 'rejected' and that is when the counsel for the Convict brothers (Mitesh Bhatt and Shailesh Bhatt) sought permission to withdraw the petitions.
Case Title: Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 22
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that Court cannot sit in appeal over the arbitral award and re-examine the merits. It held that it is not permissible for a court to reappreciate the evidence on record.
Further, it held that the arbitral award cannot be interfered with where on interpretation of any contract or document, two views are possible, and the Arbitrator has accepted one view.
Case Title: VIBHAVRIBEN VIJAYBHAI DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 23
The Gujarat High Court while quashing an FIR against former MLA Vibhavriben Vijaybhai Dave for allegedly violating the model code of conduct during the 2019 elections has ruled that chanting "Modi hai toh mumkin hai" and displaying the victory sign would not be considered election canvassing.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy held, “As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, mere showing a symbol of victory with two fingers of the hand by the petitioner after coming out of the polling station and uttering the above words by itself would not amount to committing an act of canvassing for votes.”
Case Title: Sunil Kumudchandra Rana Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 24
While rejecting an anticipatory bail application filed by a Ward Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in connection with a corruption case, the Gujarat High Court underscored that corruption not only undermines the nation's economic progress but also has far-reaching consequences on social and political spheres.
The Court further opined that corruption can corrode trust in institutions, impede economic development, and exacerbate social disparities, and thus should be handled with a strict hand.
Case Title: M/S Sai Polyplast Vs Vikas Raj Chhajer
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 25
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the High Court noted that allegations in criminal proceedings regarding fraud and misappropriation of funds, being inter se parties and having no public implications, do not make the dispute non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela Versus Union Of India & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 26
The Gujarat High Court has held that the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate can be considered valid for determining the pension payment upon superannuation, even if it differs from the date on the Aadhar Card.
This decision came in response to a case where a petitioner, who had served for over 30 years, faced pension payment issues due to a discrepancy between his service record and Aadhar Card.
Case Title: Govindbhai Ramjibhai Savani Versus The State Of Gujarat & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 27
In a special Saturday hearing held at 9:30 PM, the Gujarat High Court pulled up an applicant involved in land grabbing for moving an urgent application seeking extension of time to "lift" the encroachments using hydronic lifting technology from government land.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Nirzar S Desai said that in cases of pressing urgency Courts are open even at midnight "but for land grabbers don't think that merely by showing the urgency court will grant indulgence. This mindset carried by the people who encroach upon government land must be thrown out of their mind."
Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Versus Dilip Wagheshwari S/O Danabhai Wagheshwari
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 28
In a stern stance, the Gujarat High Court has rejected with Rs. 25,000 an Article 227 petition filed by the Union of India and its Officers with more than two years' delay.
Justice S Umesh A. Trivedi and Rajendra M Sareen remarked it is a "classic example of sheer lethargic attitude and total disregard of Court proceedings by the petitioners."
The Court in its Order observed, “Any amount of extension or reading any paragraph from even additional affidavit cannot salvage the situation as not only the impugned orders which are challenged refusing the condonation of delay, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has come to be filed after more than two years delay by the petitioners, and therefore, this petition is required to be rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 04 (four) weeks from today.”
Case Title: JATINBHAI PRAFULBHAI KAKKAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 29
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail for an individual implicated in a case related to an FIR filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The case revolves around the purported issuance of GST invoices without actual delivery of goods, allegedly resulting in a significant financial loss to the government treasury.
Justice Divyesh A Joshi presiding over the matter, passed the Order granting bail in an application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with an FIR registered with the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Rajkot of the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1466 Crore Alleged GST Scam Case
Case Title: Hitesh Prabhudas Lodhiya Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 30
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a man in a case involving an alleged GST scam amounting to Rs. 1466 crores.
This ruling came following an application filed by the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with a case registered with the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Rajkot.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 31
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the State against the order granting regular bail to an accused in a multi-crore scam case.
The ruling came in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby the petitioner State prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 11.11.2021, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in a Criminal Misc. Application, whereby, the Session Judge had granted regular bail to the respondent – original accused.
Case Title: Vinayakrao Shantilal Desai & Anr. Versus Na
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 32
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal, affirming that a Will is an instrument of free will that cannot be executed by a manager on behalf of a mentally ill person.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal And Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed, “On a conjoint reading of section 59 of the Indian Succession Act and Explanation 4 attached to it, as also section 54 read with sections 57, 58 and 59 of the M.H. Act, we are also of the considered opinion that the execution of 'Will' by the manager of the property of a mentally ill person, namely, Ms. Shraddhaben in the instant case, was an act without any authority of law.”
Case Title: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 33
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday rejected the regular bail plea of retired IAS officer Pradeep Sharma in connection to a 2023 case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch, in which Sharma is accused of corruption and criminal breach of trust for alleged illegal allotment of government land for monetary benefits as the then-collector of Kutch district.
The court expressed reluctance to favor Sharma, citing numerous FIRs registered against him for similar offenses during his tenure in a high government position.
Case Title: Parakramsinh Hathubha @ Hathisinh Jadeja Vs State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 34
The Gujarat High Court has held that that merely asking an individual to retract their statement by filing another affidavit cannot be considered as instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.
Justice Divyesh A Joshi observed, “Merely the accused asked the deceased to retract his version by filing another affidavit, would not in any manner be considered as an act to instigate, incite or provoking the deceased to commit suicide and if there was any threats and/or pressure upon the deceased to do a particular act, he could have taken appropriate recourse. The contents of the FIR indicate that the accused alleged to have goaded the deceased to make an affidavit denying his signature in a particular document, but had never intended or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.”
Case Title: Daman Wine Merchant Association Through President Versus The State Of Gujarat & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 35
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL filed by an association of liquor merchants from the Union territory of Daman seeking its intervention in stopping Gujarat police's action against them under Gujarat's prohibition laws when liquor sold by them is caught in Gujarat.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayeeobserved, “We fail to understand as to why the Wine Shop owners, who are not doing any business in the State of Gujarat would be implicated for selling liquor and the cases under the Gujarat prohibition Act, 1949, would be registered against them. For the above, as also for the fact that the present petition in the nature of PIL has been filed in the name of an Association, whose legal status has not been disclosed in the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition being misconceived.”
Case Title: Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 36
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record.
Case Title: Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 37
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record.
Case Title - Meghrajsinh S/O Manharsinh Chudasma Vs. Meghaviniba W/O Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/O Prahladsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 38
Stressing that it is difficult to assess the income of the self-employed husband working in the unorganized sector, the Gujarat High Court has observed that in such scenarios, the Family Courts have to take small guesswork to determine the husband's income.
A bench of Justice JC Doshi also added that in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, there is a tendency to avoid placing the correct scenario of the income; therefore, the husband's truthful income generally never surfaces.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Vs Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Koli
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 39
The Gujarat High Court, observing a backlog of three decades worth of Old Appeals, has directed the State to overhaul the process overseeing criminal appeals.
In their ruling, Justices AS Supehia and Vimal K Vyas emphasized the need for the State authorities to adhere to the court's previous directives, urging them to establish a mechanism for addressing the backlog of old criminal appeals. The court also criticized the State for failing to implement guidelines outlined in previous orders and instructed them to form a committee to address this issue promptly.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 40
The Gujarat High Court has taken strong exception to the pleadings of a party-in-person for accusing a sitting judge of manipulating the judicial order and it has prohibited him from appearing as party-in-person.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal also directed the Registry to initiate contempt action against Jatin Sitabhai Patel. “The assertions made by the party in person in the court and the application moved before me, in the capacity of the Chief Justice of the High Court, are to scandalize the learned judge and in turn this high court," the CJ said.
Case Title: Chandresh Vasantbhai Malani v. State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 41
The Gujarat High Court has quashed the FIR lodged against a school trustee and teacher from Surat for allegedly abetting a student's suicide. The student, an 18-year-old in 12th grade at Samarpan School, had ended his life by jumping from the 11th floor of an apartment in 2016.
The Court held that disciplinary action taken for the welfare of the student cannot be construed as grounds for abetment of suicide.
Case Title: Surya Exim Limited Thro Director Bhawani Singh Versus Union Of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 42
The Gujarat High Court has quashed the demand notice and assessment order in the absence of any claim not forming part of the resolution plan (RP).
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta has observed that, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the demand that was raised pursuant to the order dated March 13, 2023, by issuing the demand notice dated March 20, 2023, cannot be said to be in respect to a claim that is part of the resolution plan. The bench stated that the proceedings, which were continued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the department, were also not proceeding with respect to a claim that was not part of the resolution plan.
Case Title: JAYESHBHAI BABULAL VAGHELA & ANR. V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 43
On Monday, the Gujarat High Court rejected the appeal of two former occupants of the Sabarmati Gandhi Ashram complex, who had raised objections regarding the compensation they were provided for relocating from their homes as part of a redevelopment initiative.
The petitions filed by Jayesh Vaghela and Karan Soni, residents of the ashram premises, were rejected by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, following a previous refusal by a single judge bench to entertain their plea.
Case Title: Vijaysingh Meghsingh Chaudhary Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 44
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has criticized a lower court judge for issuing an order to file a First Information Report (FIR) against a Police Inspector (PI) without the appropriate authority.
Justice JC Doshi, presiding over the case, expressed bewilderment at the actions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, stating, “this Court fails to understand in which capacity and under which power learned Additional Sessions Judge has authority to direct State to file FIR against serving Police Inspector. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. provides that no Government Officer would be prosecuted without prior permission of the State. What further appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge also ordered to initiate departmental proceedings for dismissing him from service or to suspend him with immediate effect. Transfer of petitioner is also directed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.”
Case Title : Shiv Crackers Vs Chief Commissioner of CGST & C.E. & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 45
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) can be utilized for making pre-deposits in appeals under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
Shiv Crackers, a partnership firm involved in the distribution of pyrotechnic articles, contested an order issued by the Additional Commissioner under the CGST Act. This dispute stemmed from a search operation conducted by officers of the CGST, resulting in the confiscation of goods and the issuance of a show cause notice.
Case Title : Amod Anil Bhave Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed charges invoked against a pharmaceutical firm owner for allegedly violating State's prohibition law by selling intoxicating substances as ayurvedic medicine, clarifying that action under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act does not exempt an individual from prosecution if a case is made out under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar pointed that as per FSL report, level of alcohol in the medicine sold by the petitioner's firm was found to be more than 12%, the permissible limit under the Prohibition Act. It thus observed,
"...the said proceeding [under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act] cannot be equated at par with the proceeding under the Gujarat Prohibition Act...The object of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is to control manufacture and distribution of drugs...As special provision under Section 67A is inserted in the Gujarat Prohibition Act and if percentage of alcohol level is found in the muddamal samples to be more than 12%, then prima facie, offence is made out.”
Case Title: Sarvaiya Rajubhai Bachubhai Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
The Gujarat High Court has re-iterated that an adult woman is free to choose her own path in a relationship. The remarks were made while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman's live-in partner, seeking her custody after she was allegedly taken away by her husband and confined to her maternal home.
The petitioner before the court claimed to be a live-in partner of the woman, who was married to another person, but on account of matrimonial discord, she was residing with her parents and later on entered into a live in relationship agreement with the petitioner.
Case Title: Diptiben Shankarbhai Rathava & Ors. Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
The Gujarat High Court has imposed a Rs 5,000 fine on an advocate for repeatedly failing to represent his client despite specific court orders.
Additionally, the court has decided to forward Advocate Prashant V. Chavda's conduct to the Bar Council of Gujarat for further scrutiny. The Court remarked that Chavda's behaviour did not uphold the standards of the legal profession, and emphasized the need for the Bar Council to take suitable action against him. Chavda has been instructed to pay the penalty to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.
Case Title: Bhavdeep Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through Ushaben Natvarbhai Amin & Ors. Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
The Gujarat High Court recently directed a father-son do to vacate their flats in a Ahmedabad society, to facilitate the redevelopment of the 'dilapidated, dangerous, and ruinous' structure, enabling society members to receive 3BHK flats instead of their current 1BHK ones.
Presiding over the case, Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati emphasized the significance of redevelopment in the larger public interest and upheld the consent of over 75% of society members, despite objections raised by the father and son.
Case Title: Bhimnath R Yadav and Ors. Vs Trivedi Crafts Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi summarily dismissed an appeal filed against Trivedi Crafts, an Ahmedabad-based marble dealer. The bench perused Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 80B of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996 and held that the procedural requirements of retrenchment were duly followed by providing notice in the prescribed form and offering one month's wages to the affected workers in lieu of notice.
Case Title: M/s Ghakun Steels Pvt Ltd v. State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
The bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati of Gujarat High Court has held that an award passed by MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act cannot be directly challenged in a writ petition and the aggrieved party has to challenge it under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Glycols Ltd., Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 992 wherein the Apex Court held that a writ against an award by MSEF Council is not maintainable and the award can be challenge only through Section 34 of the A&C Act r/w Section 19 of the MSMED Act providing for 75% mandatory pre-deposit of the awarded amount.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Versus M/S Nayara Energy Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
The Gujarat High Court has allowed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes, welding wire, etc. used for laying rail lines outside factories.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta, while dismissing the appeal of the GST department, observed that CESTAT has correctly allowed the Cenvat credit on inputs, i.e., welding electrodes, wire FLR, filler wires, welding wires, wire rope, material used for railway lines, and capital goods, i.e., M.S. gratings and G.I. coated gratings.
Case Title: Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Man Industries (India) Ltd
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
The High Court of Gujarat has held that after an award is delivered by the arbitrator, it can entertain an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act and correct any typographical errors or provide an interpretation on the award by making an additional award.
The bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the arbitrator can provide calculations by way of an additional award if in the earlier award it had only determined the liability of the parties without clarifying the exact amount payable under the award.
Case Title: MOHAMAD IMRAN SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging a Government Resolution dated August 4, 2020, which outlines the operating procedures for compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) along with the associated rules established by the State of Gujarat in 2012.
In the decision rendered by the division bench led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, it was stated, “All submissions with regard to the data as narrated in the writ petition are hypothetical and there is no research or collection of data as to the number of children belonging to the poor strata of society, who would be deprived of by taking admission in a private school under 25% quota, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that due to gap on account of increase in age, lesser number of children would get admission in the current academic session. Moreover, the petitioner has straight-away approached this Court by means of a PIL without bringing this fact to the knowledge of the competent authority.”
Case Title: Director General R.P.F & Ors. Versus Diwan Singh, Bvp (Workshop)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 55
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that in cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the general rule. The relief granted to the workmen might be enhanced if other wrongful conduct on the part of the Management is found.
The High Court found that the Workman, employed as an RPF Constable, was absent from duty due to compelling circumstances such as a health emergency and therefore, his termination was invalid.
Case Title: Jetpur Navagadh Municipality Versus Pathan Yunuskhan Jamyalkhan
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 56
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that reinstatement with back wages isn't automatic for illegally terminated workers. Lump sum compensation might be provided instead, considering factors like the nature of employment and length of service.
Case Title:Manilal Manglaji Zariya & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel held that in accordance with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, daily-wage workmen who have completed a specific tenure are entitled to permanency.
It further noted that once permanency is granted, these workmen are also entitled to additional benefits such as pensions and higher pay scales which are available for regularly appointed workmen. Thereby, the bench directed the Forest Department to assess the services of the aggrieved Workmen and grant them permanency upon receiving individual applications.
Case Title: Range Forest Officer Versus Virjibhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that once the termination of a Workman is declared illegal, the remedy is limited to either reinstatement or a lumpsum compensation.
Considering the impracticality of reinstatement due to passing of substantial time after termination and the Workman's proximity to retirement age, the High Court held it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation to the Workman.
Case Title: Shalibhadra Adinath Enterprise and Shalibhadra Apartment Through Member Versus Kanan Maruday Padaram
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 59
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that personal services which are not in nature of a commercial activity render the serving Association outside the ambit of the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The bench noted that services rendered to the members of a society, formed solely for their benefit, do not qualify as industrial activities.
Case Title: Executive Engineer - Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Versus Patel Rasikbhai Rangabhai & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 60
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that when the charges of serious nature are not proved and the punishment awarded by the Management is rightly held to be disproportionate, the Labour Court has the right to invoke Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment.
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertains to the authority of the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal to modify the punishment imposed by the employer on an employee in certain cases. This section empowers the adjudicating body to interfere with the punishment if it finds it disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the employee. It lays down specific conditions under which such interference is permissible, including cases where the principles of natural justice have not been followed during the disciplinary proceedings or where the punishment is found to be excessive considering the gravity of the offense.
Case Title: Kiranbhai Harkishandas Patel Alias Kiranbhai Harkishandas Bhandari vs M/S Meet Chetans Private Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that a workman's refusal to work in a reassigned department after a departmental transfer does not constitute 'termination' by the Management if the provisions of such transfers were included in the Workman's appointment letters.
Case Title: Naran Devashi Meheshwari & Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel held that the period prior to the date of regularisation, wherein the Workman met the requirement of working 240 days, must be factored into the calculation of pension and other retirement benefits.
Case Title: Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 63
The Gujarat High Court today pronounced judgment acquitting a former BJP Member of Parliament Dinu Solanki and six others in the high-profile case of the murder of RTI activist Amit Jethwa (in Jully 2010).
While doing so, a bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Vimal K Vyas sternly observed that the investigation in the case, right from its inception, appeared to be an “eyewash” and that all efforts were made to ensure that the “truth is buried forever.”
Case Title: Kamlesh Jivanlal Dave and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 64
In a significant verdict, the Gujarat High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with its allied rules. The Act is yet to receive Presidential assent.
The ruling came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, who pronounced judgement on a batch of over 150 petitions challenging the law.
The division bench held that the Land Grabbing Act, 2020, and its allied rules are not unconstitutional, dismissing claims that they violate several articles of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: Rajkot Municipal Corporation Versus Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 65
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivediheld that if the inquiry conducted by the employer was found illegal or violative of principles of natural justice, the Labour Court is legally obligated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer before deciding the matter. The bench concluded that both the Single Judge bench and the Labour Court erred in jurisdiction by not affording the employer an opportunity to present evidence before the Labour Court.
Case Title: Suo Motu Versus Gujarat National Law University (Gnlu) & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
The Gujarat High Court has expressed displeasure at the director of Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) for his silence regarding the university's stance in court proceedings related to alleged harassment and sexual abuse on campus.
The Court disposed of the suo motu PIL on 1st May after accepting GNLU registrar's apology and assurance by the university to improve administration. However, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee questioned director S Shanthakumar's silence on the university's efforts to downplay the issue in the registrar's affidavit.
Case Title: PWD and Forest Employees Union & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 67
The Gujarat High Court single-judge bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak held that the termination of services of Workmen without issuing any prior notice violates the principles of natural justice.
It was noted that the Forest and Environment Department (Gujarat) illegally terminated the services of its Workmen, to deprive them of benefits under the Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988. The Resolution promised several allowances and leaves to the daily wage workers, subject to the years in service.
Case Title: Deputy Collector & Anr. Versus Meera S. Desai & Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 68
In a significant legal decision regarding the imposition of stamp duty on property transactions, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that Stamp Authorities cannot levy Stamp Duty twice on the same sale consideration for transfer of an immovable property, when sale consideration was paid at the stage of execution of the Agreement to Sell and the Stamp Duty was paid on the entire sale consideration at the time of registration of the said instrument.
Case Title: NEPRA Resources Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Notified Area Authority, Vapi, does not qualify as a local authority or governmental authority. As a result, the Solid Waste Management and recycling services provided to it are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June 2017.
The division bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral M. Mehta, held, “considering the conspectus of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), the Notified Area Authority, Vapi cannot be considered as “local authority” or “Governmental Authority”. Therefore, the Notified Area Authority,Vapi is neither a “local authority” nor a “Governmental Authority” carrying out any activity in relation to any function entrusted to Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Vimal Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the imposition of a 12 percent tax on Mango Pulp since the inception of GST. The court clarified that Circular No. 179/11/2022-GST dated August 3, 2022, and Notification No. 06/2022 dated July 13, 2022, simply reinforce that mango pulp falls under the 12 percent GST bracket, specifically after the inclusion of "Mangoes (other than mangoes, sliced, dried)" following guava.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Metal Industries Proprietor In Rs. 6.67 Crore GST Evasion Case
Case Title: Dipen Champaklal Shah Vs State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail in a case of GST evasion amounting to Rs. 6.67 Crores to the proprietor of Metal Industries, a business engaged in manufacturing and trading brass products, metal scrap, etc. in Jamnagar after 79 days of cost
Justice MR Mengdey presiding over the case, held, “In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.”
Case Title: Black Stone Corporation Private Limited Vs State Of Gujarat & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Black Stone Corporation Private Limited, observing that the petitioner was afforded an adequate hearing opportunity. The court directed the petitioner to avail the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority.
Black Stone Corporation had challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (enforcement), Vadodara, under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that adequate hearing opportunity was not provided and that relied-upon documents were not supplied, contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
Case Title: Jagatsinh Punjesinh Parmar Vs State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his two minor children by administering poison in tea, biscuits, and water.
The division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vimal K. Vyas observed that the appellant had committed a heinous offence without any motive, reason, or instigation.
The bench noted, "Thus, on the overall appreciation of the evidence, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant has committed a heinous offence of murdering his minor children without any motive, reason or any type of instigation. The children have suffered immense agony on their final journey of life, which has been cut short by the accused. The appellant is not worthy of any leniency; hence we find that the trial court has precisely convicted the accused for heinous offence of double murder of his children."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Himatlal Bhailal Rajgor & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of six individuals in a counterfeit currency case, dismissing the appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Court maintained that the absence of mens rea, or the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing, rendered the mere use of forged or counterfeit currency notes insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Suhel Ismail Ibrahim Vora Patel
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court acquitted a robbery accused, emphasising that to establish a charge under Section 397 of the IPC, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the offender used a weapon, such as a knife.
The provision prescribes penalty for use of a weapon at the time of committing robbery or dacoity.
Justice Nisha M. Thakore presiding over the case, observed, “I have closely gone through the record and proceedings, more particularly, the list of muddamal and the arrest panchnama of accused at Exh.19 and Exh.21, there is no recovery of knife or any other weapon. The prosecution has maintained silence on such vital aspect. The basic requirement to attract section 397 of the I.P.C. is not fulfilled. In order to establish the charge under Section 397 of I.P.C., the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the offender has put the weapon knife to use.”
Case Title: Ashokbhai Bhurjibhai Mori @ More Versus State Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The Gujarat High Court has quashed the conviction of a police inspector, sentenced to seven days of simple imprisonment, for allegedly failing to produce material evidence in a trial.
The Court observed that as per Section 349 CrPC, the Court, after recording reasons, may sentence a witness for a term not exceeding seven days simple imprisonment, unless in the meantime, the witness produces the document or thing.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Shashikant Gordhanbhai Patel & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a murder case, emphasising that it is prudent to look for corroboration of an oral dying declaration.
The division bench comprising Justices Ilesh J Vohra and Niral R Mehta observed, “an oral Dying Declaration can form the basis of conviction if the deponent is in fit condition to make the declaration and if it is found to be truthful. The Courts as a matter of prudence look for corroboration to oral Dying Declaration. However, if there exists any suspicion as regards the correctness or otherwise of the said Dying Declaration, the Courts in arriving at the conclusion of conviction, shall look for some corroborating evidence.”
Case Title: Kalpeshkumar Babubhai Turi v. State of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
On Monday, the Gujarat High Court denied bail to Kalpesh Turi, a former technical officer at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) facing charges of cyber terrorism for allegedly sending photographs related to the organisation's Space Applications Centre to a woman based in Pakistan.
Justice MR Mengdey presiding over the case denied Turi's bail for the second time noting that trial of the offence has commenced and several witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. "Therefore, there appears no change in circumstance after the filing of the earlier bail application.”
Case Title- C2R Projects LLP v. Kinetix Solutions Private Limited & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a substitute Co-Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an arbitrator's mandate is terminated by the operation of law.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal presiding over the case, stated, "As discussed above, this is not a case of withdrawal from the office by the Arbitrator, but rather a termination of the arbitrator's mandate by operation of law. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel's arguments for the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to appoint a substitute co-arbitrator by invoking Clause 11.12 of the Agreement, must be rejected."
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Setco Automotive Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 80
The Gujarat High Court has held that including additional income in the absence of incriminating material is outside the purview of rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta has observed that inclusion of the disclosure made by the assessee company would require long-drawn reasoning and debate, and therefore, when the issues and contentions were debatable on uncertainty, the assessing officer could not have invoked the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act for rectification of the mistake apparent on record.