NOMINAL INDEX Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193 Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194 Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195 Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196 Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri...
NOMINAL INDEX
Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 another 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
Hamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/S Haiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Cazy Concepts and Mazes pvt. Ltd. & 1 other(s) v/s n. Venkta yayadri rao & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
Madhukantaben D/O Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
K News Channel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union Of India Thru The Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya Versus The Registrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
Aasifbhai Hajiabdul Bhaya V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
Adi Enterprises Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245
Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248
Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250
Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF JUNE
Case Title: Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
While emphasizing on the paramount welfare of children in custody matters and observing that young children need love and warmth of both the parents, the Gujarat High Court recently directed the District Legal Service Authority to attempt conciliation between an estranged couple.
"We would also request the Chairperson, Rajkot District Legal Service Authority to also attempt to bring about the permanent solution between the parties, as according to us, such solution will be quite beneficial. After once the Chairperson undertakes this exercise and if he finds the need for continuity of the process, he will be at liberty to relegate the parties to professional counselors or anyone he deems appropriate," a bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt ordered.
Case Title: Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
The High Court reiterated that when a government servant is accused of a criminal offence, there has to be a reasonable connection between the act concerned and the performance of his official duty for him to claim that there is need of sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC.
Holding thus, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel dismissed the applications filed by members of the Police Force, challenging an order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint against them and issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 114 of IPC.
Case title - Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Citing the limited scope of judicial review with Courts to interfere with stipulations in recruitment advertisements which is the exclusive domain of the executive authority, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a Civil Judge from Rajasthan seeking the appointment to the post of Civil Judge in Gujarat.
Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for alleged assault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, it is too early to opine on his innocence.
"If the allegations found to be true, it is a very serious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocate is expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and the Investigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory duties under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," Justice Samir Dave said.
Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material.
The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.
Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not own or exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found the termination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused to interfere with his retrenchment.
Significantly, the Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Bench refused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal.
Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a Road Contractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant with principles of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor in relation to three work orders.
However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made it clear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing the final order in the matter.
"Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 has been set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend that respondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to the Corporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to rely upon their own earlier order, it is for them to justify it while passing the final order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity to interfere at this juncture."
Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order
Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.
The writ applicant/assessee is registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued by the State Tax Officer on Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
The High Court granted bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercial quantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accused of offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar for grant of bail under the provision.
Case Title : Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
The High Court held that a reserved category meritorious candidate should be allowed to merge in the class of unreserved category because of his own merits, as depriving such candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category results into communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.
In this case, an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III was issued by the Recruitment Board inviting online applications for a total of 1,382 posts to be filled in. The petitioners are candidates who took the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for the main examination.
Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 26 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
The High Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.
The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made to the validity of terms of the clause
The Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process provided under the agreement after agreeing on the same with open eyes unless a challenge is made to the validity of such a clause.
Case Title : Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat| C/SCA/7676/2017| 10 June 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Justice Bhargav D. Karia of the High Court has held that in case of voluntary retirement from service, if the appointing authority does not permit or refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
In this case, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Deputy Engineer at Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in 1992. He served a notice for voluntary retirement in 2013 upon the University on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. In the said letter the petitioner stated that the petitioner would retire voluntarily w.e.f. 06.01.2014. The Respondent-University did not issue any intimation with regard to any order rejecting or accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 06.01.2014 on expiry of the three months' notice period.
Case Title: Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
Opining that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, particularly which require technical know-how is limited, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel where the Petitioner's challenge to the show cause notices issued by Indian Oil Corporation were dismissed.
Case Title: krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
The High Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) was legally not entitled to demand betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc. at the time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme.
Case Title: Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
The High Court came to the rescue of a retired Branch Manager, accused by the employer-bank of causing it monetary loss by haphazardly sanctioning loans, and ordered the latter to clear the former's retiral dues.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the order forfeiting the Respondent-employee's gratuity was an "afterthought" as the same was issued only after the penalty of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement and after the respondent approached the bank seeking payment of gratuity.
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
The former ASG at Gujarat High Court, IH Syed was granted anticipatory bail by a bench consisting of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel of the Gujarat High Court. The court found that the accused was not obliged to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail and even though the Court's power of granting anticipatory bail was not ordinary, its use was not confined to exceptional cases alone.
Case Title: Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
The Gujarat High Court has held that an accused person can be competent witness, provided there is a written permission or there is a written request made to the concerned court at the instance of accused under Section 315 CrPC.
It thus dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court which rejected the Petitioner's application for being treated as a witness, in the absence of a written request.
Case Title : Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Rajendra M. Sareen has held that custody of a minor with his maternal grandparents could not be considered illegal custody or illegal confinement, given that the husband/ the father of the minor had remarried during subsistence of his marriage with his first wife, who was the mother of the said minor.
This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the police authority to produce the corpus (Samir, a minor aged 9 years) and handover his custody to the petitioner (the father). The respondent in this case are maternal grandparents of the corpus.
Case Title: Hamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/S Haiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
Taking into account the income of the deceased victim of motor accident, the spousal consortium and the parental consortium, the Gujarat High Court has increased the motor accident compensation for the Appellants (family of the deceased) by a significant amount, i.e., by Rs. 4,84,000.
Whereas the Trial Court had ordered payment of Rs. 15,58,900/-, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Sandeep Bhatt enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,42,856/-. It observed, "all the three appellant no.1 would be entitled to spousal consortium, and appellants no.2 and 3 would be entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/-)."
Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order under GST on the grounds that the notice as well as the order were passed on the same date, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Observing that the concerned agricultural land was already converted under Gujarat Land Revenue Code for 'Non-Agricultural' purpose of cottage industries, the Gujarat High Court has held that it makes no difference if there is a change in the nature of industries and has thus, allowed a petition seeking the revision of plan from 'Marble Cottage Industries' to 'Commercial Purpose'.
Case Title: crazy concepts and mazes pvt. Ltd. & 1 other(s) v/s n. Venkta yayadri rao & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
The Gujarat High Court has held that as per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.
Thus, in a suit pertaining to infringement of artwork, Justice AP Thaker observed that it cannot be said that the copyright of the Plaintiff had come to an end on a particular date and that the actions of the Respondent reproducing the work under a different trade name cannot be injuncted. It observed,
"Copyright would not come to an end on a particular date, it will subsist till the death of the author and even 60 years thereafter. Therefore, admittedly the observations of the trial Court that copyright has expired in 2011 is legally not tenable."
Case Title: Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding that whether the cheque was issued by the petitioner or his brother who had the same initials was a question to be considered at the stage of trial and prima facie the intention of the petitioner was to avoid paying back the huge sum to the complainant.
Justice Nirzar Desai dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner, a proprietor of AK Construction claimed that his brother's firm, AK Road Constructor was a separate entity and that the complaint against a cheque issued by AK Road Contractor did not have any connection with him.
Case Title: Madhukantaben D/O Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
Referring to the Registration Act, 1908, the Gujarat High Court has opined that if any right concerning a property valued above Rs. 100 has been relinquished or extinguished, it requires compulsory registration before the registering authority under the Act.
In the absence of such registration, such relinquishment cannot affect any immovable property comprised therein and the said document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, it added.
Case Title : K News Channel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
Citing non-compliance with Section 8 of the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 2004 and violation of principles of natural justice, the Gujarat High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad cancelling the licence of 'K News Channel'.
Operation Of Roads Within Defence Area Absolute Domain Of Defence Authorities: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union Of India Thru The Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Observing that it is the 'absolute domain' of the Ministry of Defence to decide the opening or closing of the road which falls in the defence area, the Gujarat High Court has refused to grant relief to the Petitioners complaining that blocking of a road by the defence authorities was causing them hardship in approaching their society / homes.
"...It is for the army authorities to determine which area is sensitive or more prone to such hazard or which is not or through which a passage can be permitted or not and it is their sole discretion and in absence of any right of any party, a mandate cannot be issued."
Case Title: Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that issues involving enforcement of the conditions of a Franchise Agreement cannot be the subject matter of an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Samir J. Dave, held that conditions of a contract can be enforced only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged and crystallised by the Arbitrator. The Court ruled that proceedings under Section 9 of the A&C Act are only for interim measures and that they cannot be converted into proceedings where a party can indirectly seek the final relief.
Case Title: Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
The High Court of Gujarat has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal whereby it has rejected the claim of a party on the ground that its pleadings were without verification and affidavit to that effect.
The Single Bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that once the arbitrator rejects the claims of a party that essentially means a final disclosure of its claims and the order of the arbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Can't Refuse Arms License Unless Applicant Found Unworthy U/S 14 Arms Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ petition challenging the order of District Magistrate rejecting the Petitioner's application for obtaining an arms license, stating that he was not found ineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Case Title: Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that when the service of an employee is dismissed in culmination of disciplinary inquiry on account of misconduct, the plea moved by him for regularization of the period of suspension cannot be considered in isolation.
It added that since the Petitioner had challenged the dismissal before the High Court, the two proceedings will go hand in hand.
"The Court is not inclined to entertain this petition as the claim of the petitioner with regards to the regularization of the period of suspension as prayed for now before this Court, cannot be examined in isolation, pending the challenge to the order of dismissal which the petitioner has already made in a separate petition," Justice AY Kogje said.
Case Title: Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained it is a human tendency to wait for the returning of a missing family member for many years and therefore, in a suit for declaration for the death of such person, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.
The Appellant-Original Plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that his son was missing since 31.01.1984 and could not be found till the filing of the suit. Therefore, he sought that the Nagarpalika, Surat declare his son dead and make an entry to this effect. No written statement was filed by the Defendant-State. However, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and a first appeal against the same was also unsuccessful on ground of limitation.
Case Title : Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya Versus The Registrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ seeking direction upon the Registrar of Birth and Death/Chief Officer, to delete the name of a minor's biological father's name from his birth certificate and replace it with his adoptive father's name.
For this, Justice A.S. Supehia opined that neither is the consent of the biological father required to be obtained by the registrar nor is he required to be arraigned as a party to the writ petition, as the adoption deed was not in question.
Case Title: Aasifbhai Hajiabdul Bhaya V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Case No.: R/CR.MA/14875/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Observing the difference between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and the cancellation of bail, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the bail order of an Accused person on the ground that 'misused the liberty and grossly violated the conditions of the bail.'
The Applicant (Original Complainant) indicated that goods worth INR 42,35,000 were stolen from his house and as a result a complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sec 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the IPC. However, it was submitted that Respondent No. 2 (Accused person) committed the crime of a similar nature during the pendency of the instant proceedings and therefore, bail should not be allowed to continue. There were also additional averments that the Accused person was served notice in 2017 for the instant application and yet he chose not to cooperate with it. The APP submitted that the Accused person had committed several offences of similar nature, including during the pendency of the petition. Two more offences were committed in 2021 and therefore, bail ought to be cancelled.
Case Title : Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Biren Vaishnav held that delay in appointment, when entirely attributable to the employer and caused due to no fault of the candidate could not be allowed to result in a delayed promotion for the said candidate.
Briefly, the facts of this case are that the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male). The petitioner applied for the same online. He was placed at Serial No. 677, as his written test marks were 55.80 and he got additional 2.79 marks for sports, making his total 58.59.
Case Title: Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
The Gujarat High Court has held that where any information sought under the Right to Information Act is destroyed and it is not the case of malafide destruction of information, penalty under Section 20(2) of RTI Act shall not be attracted.
Section 20 stipulates disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer where information sought is not supplied within the time specified, or is malafidely denied or incorrect information is knowingly given or information is destroyed.
Case Title: Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is for the purpose of execution of the award or dealing with the pre-existing right or benefit arising out of the settlement of a workman against his employer. The same does not make way for a Labour Court to enter into an adjudicatory process, giving a finding on disputed facts between the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje was hearing a challenge to a Labour Court's order directing the Petitioner-organisation to pay full wages to the respondent-workman from 2006-2013.
Case Title: M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
The Gujarat High Court has held that the acid test to determine whether or not a dispute relating to property is a "commercial dispute" under Commercial Court's Act, 2015 is that the property in question is used "exclusively" in trade or commerce.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Samir Dave observed, "Dispute arising out of agreements relating to property used exclusively in trade and commerce would constitute a commercial dispute...a commercial dispute would otherwise not cease to be commercial dispute merely because action involves recovery of immovable property or realisation of money out of immovable property or involve any other relief pertaining to immovable property."
Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
High Court cannot decide disputed questions of facts in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of arbitrator, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed, "All these issues including arbitrability can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself."
The observation was made while deciding the application preferred by the Petitioner for appointment of sole arbitrator in connection with a dispute arising from agreement relating to operation of a restaurant owned by the respondent.
Case Title: Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to a public servant employed in the Police force and his wife, in a case of dowry harassment initiated at the instance of their daughter in law.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel observed that merely because the accused father-in-law is in Police is no ground to deny him anticipatory bail and adequate conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering of evidence. In fact, the bench was of the view that the father-in-law being a public servant, there could not be any apprehension that he would flee from trial.
Case Title: Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a freelance reporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plots reserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the petition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of the plots had been made and there was not even a whisper in the petition as to why the petitioner did not raise his "little finger" from 2003 / 2006, particularly when he claims to be an RTI activist, a public spirited person and espousing the cause of the public.
Case Title : Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
The Gujarat High Court has held that even if a mother seeks to sell off the property of her minor child, despite her being a natural guardian, she can be looked at with suspicion and be denied permission to sell off such property if relevant material details are not provided.
Case Title: Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Emphasising on the principles of proportionality and parity while determining punishment, the High Court has reduced punishment of deduction of pension from 100% to 25% imposed on a sub-inspector accused of aiding an under-trial to escape police custody.
The Petitioner-accused challenged the order of 2015 passed by the Respondent-State wherein the Petitioner's monthly pension was deducted 100%. The Petitioner also challenged the order where the Respondent-State had refused to reconsider the impugned order.
Case Title: Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
The Gujarat High Court has said that where the service of a workman is terminated in violation of the procedure for Retrenchment & Re-Employment provided under Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an order of reinstatement ought to follow.
Holding thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the order of the Labour Court which granted backwages worth Rs. 72,000 to the terminated workmen, and directed their reinstatement in service, with continuity of service. It said,
"Compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be detrimental to the petitioners who have worked for over a period of 20 years."
Case Title: Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
The Gujarat High Court has held that an institution registered under the Wakf Board, indulging in commercial activities such as printing magazines apart from imparting religious education, is an 'industry' for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It added that a 'Maulvi' who is entrusted with the management of such commercial activity, in the present case managing all the printing material, etc., is a 'workman' under the Act and thus, the provisions under the Act relating to termination of service will be attracted.
Case Title: Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a party is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after it had signed the discharge voucher without any protest or demur, since no arbitrable dispute could be said to subsist.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that an application for referring the dispute to arbitration could not be entertained merely on the ground that the party had, within 15 days from the receipt of an amount, contended that the said amount was received by it under duress.
Case Title: Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Niral R. Mehta held that while exercising its powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the court could not impose any condition which amounted to it exercising powers envisaged under some other enactment. The court held that any such condition imposed would be completely beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a FIR lodged for violation of the Environment (Protection) Act against a factory owner for allegedly dumping chemicals in open land by excavating pits.
Remarking that the case is nothing but a glaring example of "horrifying side effects of industrial growth", Justice Niral R. Mehta refused to exercise the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The bench observed,
"In my considered opinion, the present case is a glaring example of horrifying side effects of industrial growth, wherein not only society at large is being affected, but it is prejudicial to the cattle as well. Therefore, in my view, when the industrialization is achieving its peak, then our eyes must not be closed against those errant, who, for the sake of their meager profit, manipulating with the nature and life of human."
Case Title: Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Registrar under the Births and Deaths Registration Act is bound to issue certificate in the name of adoptive father where there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of the Applicant.
The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia in a petition moved by the mother of one 'Nidhi', seeking to include her second husband/ Nidhi's adoptive father's name in Nidhi's birth certificate. The bench observed that the Registrar cannot insist on a decree of the Court with regard to the adoption since as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a "presumption" is drawn in favour of the Petitioner under Section 16 of the Adoptions Act, since there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of her daughter "Nidhi".
Case Title : Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
A single-judge bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court held that in terms of conduction of examination and results for admission to LLB course, the rules of a University would prevail over the Rules of Bar Council of India.
In this case, the High Court upheld Saurashtra University rules that prohibited admission for an LLB course in cases where the graduate had not passed their examination in a single attempt.
Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest
Case title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.
The applicants/petitioners have sought the direction to the respondents/department to grant a refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 with appropriate interest on the refund.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
The High Court upheld the acquittal of a general store owner, who was booked under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after noticing that the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which the samples were collected, were not followed.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the Food Safety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not clean at the place of collecting the sample. He had also admitted that the covers of the bottles were not cleaned at the time. It said,
"This Court is of the view that though the complainant had explained all the formalities for collecting the samples but, so longer as the mandatory provisions are concerned for cleanliness of bottles and also cleanliness of the cover is concerned, same is not proved. On the contrary admitted that the same is not cleaned and therefore...this Court is of the opinion that (trial) Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent, which learned APP has failed to dislodge them."
Case Title: Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
The High Court held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, when a widow dies intestate, her heirs including son and daughter out of wedlock or even from illicit relationships are entitled to the share in her property.
Justice AP Thaker further held that since the deceased widow in the instant case was one of the owners of the suit property, she had every right to give her undivided share to anyone vide her Will, particularly, when the Will had not been challenged by anyone before the High Court.
"It is worthwhile to refer to Hindu Succession Act, wherein under Section 15, a Hindu widow can inherit land from his second husband and even her children born out of first marriage can also inherit land from second husband."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245
Referring Section 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, the High Court explained that a Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed any offence under the Act, if he has purchased the food article in question from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with written warranty.
Keeping in view the provision, the High Court refused to interfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate, acquitting the vendor and owner of one Didar Traders.
Bank Can't Attach Customer's PPF Account For Settlement Of His Debt/ Liability: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
The High Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that the amount of Public Provident Fund account shall not be liable to any attachment in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the account holder.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia was hearing the case of a Petitioner who had invested Hindu Undivided Family's money under Centre's Public Provident Fund Scheme with the Respondent-Bank of Baroda.
Case Title: Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Finding itself in agreement with other High Courts across the country, the High Court held that the increment earned by an employee (government servant) for the past period of service cannot be denied merely because the said employee had retired when the increment became payable.
Justice Biren Vaishnav concurred with the Delhi High Court that when increment was earned for past period, its denial on the ground that on the date when the increment became payable the government servant was not holding the post as he had retired, was not valid.
Case Title : Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248
The High Court has held that the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 does not envisage any provision that would require the custody of a new-born child to be retained by the surrogate mother for a particular period of time, for the purpose of breastfeeding.
A division bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the court must interpret the law as it stands and not on considerations of perceived morality. Thus, a new-born child could be handed over to the intended parents even without a court order, in lieu of the provisions of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 and the surrogacy agreement signed between the parties.
Case No.: Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
The High Court quashed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha which forfeited the allotment of land to a Public Trust for the purpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court also directed the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.
The development ensued after the Court noted that the competent government authority had passed the order for forfeiture, beyond the show cause notice that was issued to the Petitioner.
Case Title: Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250
In a petition involving alleged misuse of cheque, the Gujarat High Court has directed to send the disputed cheque to the Forensics Laboratory for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert to ensure the 'larger object of fair trial.'
The Petitioner, an accused, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had challenged the order of the trial court and Sessions Judge which rejected his plea for forensic examination of the cheque. The Petitioner made the prayer for sending the cheque for examination by the Handwriting Expert to determine the ageing and the writing on the cheque.
Case Title: Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocate enrolled in the Gujarat Bar Council and practising before various courts.
Case Title.: Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reasons for refusal of a firearm license under the Arms Act should have a nexus and should be in context with the provisions of the Act and that the license cannot be revoked on irrelevant considerations.
The Bench of Justice AS Supehia further observed that the authority could not have revoked the Applicant's license merely because he had not received any threats or there was no incident of assault on him.
"The revocation of the license on the two grounds as mentioned hereinabove, is absolutely illegal and de hors the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act," it observed.