Gujarat High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-101]
CITATIONS- 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101Monthly DigestsGujarat High Court Monthly Digest: January & February 2022 [Citations 1-59]Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 60 To 101] NOMINAL INDEX M/S. Karnataka Traders V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 1 Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel Vs Reshma Ruchin Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 2 The...
CITATIONS- 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
Monthly Digests
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: January & February 2022 [Citations 1-59]
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 60 To 101]
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S. Karnataka Traders V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 1
Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel Vs Reshma Ruchin Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 2
The Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar Association, Surat V. Union Of India & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 3
Sujal Jayantibhai Mayatra Versus NA; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 4
Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli Vs Shantaben Maganbhai Koli; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 5
Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal Vs Alarakhbhai Yusufbhai Juneja; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 6
Ineos Styrolution India Limited Vs Shaileshbhai Manibhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 7
Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 8
State Of Gujarat V. Pwd & Forest Employees Union; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 9
State Of Gujarat Vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 10
Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 11
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara And Ors; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 12
Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena V. Government Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 13
Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 14
State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 15
Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 16
Mamta Bhavesh Dave Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Gandhinagar; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 17
Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 18
Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus The Arbitrator, Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 19
Ranjitprasad Chandradevram Rajvanshi Properitor Of Shree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 20
Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, Thro Managing Trustee Versus Collector; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 21
Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 22
Nipun Praveen Singhvi V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 23
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs Shantuben Sanjaybhai Mer; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 24
Essar Bulk Terminal Limited Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 25
Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 26
Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 27
Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim Vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 28
Firoz Hajibhai Sodha Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 29
C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 30
Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 31
Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 32
Minakshiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 33
Sapna Gehlot W/O Devendra Singh Gehlot Thru Poa Kuldeep Singh Chauhan Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 34
Arvind Limited Through Autho. Rep. Hardik Motiwala Versus Suo Motu; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 35
Hirabhai Lakhabhai Bharwad @ Virabhai Lakhabhai Bharwad Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 36
Hiteshkumar Nileshbhai Prajapati Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 37
Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat And Ors; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 38
Sonalben Bhanabhai Tadvi-Minor Through Uncle & 2 Other(S) Versus Madhuben Bhagubhai Tadvi & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 39
H.K.Thakur Versus Nazir Noormohmed Kara & 2 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 40
M/S. Raghunandan Enterprise Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 41
Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 42
Rajubhai Kanubhai Bharwad Versus South Indian Bank; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 43
Bilkisbanu (Bilkisbano) Hanifkhan @ Kalo Munno Amirkhan Jatmalek Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 44
Nandlal Namdev Otwani Versus Vijay Jayprakash Ahuja; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 45
Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 46
Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 47
Dharmendra Ravipratap Rajak Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 48
Hirenbhai Hiteshbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 49
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 50
J. V. State Of Gujarat (Name Concealed Intentionally); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 51
Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 52
Parulben Natwarlal Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 53
New India Assurance Co Ltd Versus Mukeshbhai Bhimsingbhai Rajput & 4 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 54
Solanki Vipulkumar Virabhai Versus Institute Of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 55
Dinesh Sharan Thakur Versus Dr. M K Shah Medical College And Research Centre; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 56
Gujarat Rajya Hotel Federation & 9 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 57
Kiritkumar Ravjibhai Sharma Versus Principal/Trustee Saraswati Kadavni Mandal; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 58
Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited V. Rmc Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 59
Ayeshaben wd/o. Ahmed Adam Alinatha & 8 other(s) versus Huriben Ismail Ali Since Deceased through legal heirs 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 60
Keshavbhai Mohanbhai Bhut vs Ranabhai Kalabhai Senta 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Saint-Gobain India Private Limited Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 63
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 64
M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 65
YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 67
Sukeshi Vijaybhai Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 68
Chaudhary Pravinbhai Revabhai Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
Raghuversinh Chandrasinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Archana Mukesh Raval v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
State Of Gujarat vs Natvarsinh Prabhatsinih Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v. Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
Janakbhai @ Alpeshbhai Mafatbhai Rabari & 1 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Kumarkhaniya (Devipujak) & 3 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel (Deleted) v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
Dilip Bhavanishankar Yadav v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 85
Mayank Jayantbhai Shah S/O Jayant Manharlal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
A B C (Victim) vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
Shantaben Ambalal Patel & 1 Other(S) Versus Sunitaben Vijaykumar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
Chauhan Mahmadrafik Abdul Latif Versus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited Through Authorized Person 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
M/s New Nalbandh Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 90
Manoj @ Munnabhai Ashwinbhai Somabhai Parmar Versus Director General Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
Ramsingbhai Saburbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 92
Union Of India Thro Amitkumar, Intelligence Officer Or His Successor In Office Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vs Rameshbhai Hirabhai Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
-Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v. Directorate General Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Chandra Darshan Developers Through Partner Versus Hiralal Gopalbhai 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVAL DEEPAKKKUMAR SHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
JUDGMENTS/ORDER OF THE QUARTER (JAN-MAR 2022)
Case Title - M/S. KARNATAKA TRADERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
The Gujarat High Court has held that mere undervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't be sufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedings including the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against the Petitioner, Karnataka Traders, who is a seller of the goods (Arecanut) and a registered dealer under the GST.
Case Title - Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel vs Reshma Ruchin Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 2
The Gujarat High Court has observed that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.
The Bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of S Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, wherein it was held that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.
Case Title - THE SOUTHERN GUJARAT INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, SURAT v. UNION OF INDIA & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 3
The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT) today assured the Gujarat High Court that it shall attend to the grievances of the assessee (intending to file ITR and Tax Audit Reports) regarding the technical glitches existing on the Income Tax Portal.
The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore was also told about the grievance mechanism that has been employed by the Board to deal with the existing and potential issues with regard to the technical glitches of the Income Tax Portal.
Case Title - SUJAL JAYANTIBHAI MAYATRA Versus NA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld an order of the family court refusing to waive off the statutory 6 months cooling period in a plea by a couple seeking a mutual divorce who lived with each other for a period of 12 days only.
The Bench of Justice A. C. Joshi observed that the family court rightly passed the order refusing to waive off the cooling period therefore, there was no requirement to interfere in the impugned order of the Court.
Case Title: Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli vs Shantaben Maganbhai Koli
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 5
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi at the Gujarat High Court has held that the maximum limit of 90 days for filing the written statement as under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory in nature. However, the Courts must exercise this discretion sparingly and not in the routine course.
Difference Between Article 226 & Article 227 Of Constitution: Gujarat High Court Explains
Case Title: Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal vs Alarakhbhai Yusufbhai Juneja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 6
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the High Court must exercise its Supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly.
Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi also discussed the difference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in detail. Justice Joshi termed the exercise of power under Article 227 as 'discretionary' while the jurisdiction under Article 226 as 'a matter of right.'
Case Title: Ineos Styrolution India Limited vs Shaileshbhai Manibhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 7
Upholding the decision of the Single Judge Bench, the Bench comprising Justice Vora and Justice Mayee has affirmed that under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'), the workman is entitled to payment of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court and not from the date of filing of affidavit as contended by the Appellant-Company.
Case Title - HAMIM HABIBBHAI KHAMBHATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 8
The Gujarat High Court recently granted relief to an interfaith married couple, and sternly asked the parents of the girl, who are opposed to the inter faith marriage and their relationship, not to misbehave.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was hearing the Habeas Corpus plea by one Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati who filed a writ of habeas corpus for production of his wife with whom he got married under the Special Marriage Act.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. PWD & Forest Employees Union
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 9
The Gujarat High Court recently held that the benefits flowing from a Resolution applicable to the State Government employees cannot be automatically claimed by the employees of the autonomous body.
The bench comprising Justice A. P. Thaker and Justice N.V. Anjaria discarded the plea of discrimination asserted by the employees of Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation insofar as they were denied the benefit of a Resolution of the Public Works Department of the Government of Gujarat, whereby scheme was launched for the daily wagers working in the departments of the Government and under which the daily wagers came to be granted the benefits depending upon the completion of their service.
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
While explaining that to prove an offence under Section 306, the Prosecution must satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 first, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgement and quash the order of acquittal. While doing so, the Bench delved into the terms 'abetment' and 'instigation' under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, at length.
Case Title - Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 11
While hearing a case challenging the Central Government's move to withdraw anti-dumping duty on the imports of "PVC Flex Films" from China, the Gujarat High Court last week stayed the notification of the Central Government for a period of six weeks.
This order has been made by the bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore in view of the pendency of an appeal before the Special Bench of the Tribunal under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 challenging the withdrawal of the said anti-dumping duty.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd vs Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 12
An insurance company cannot be held liable for indemnity if the driver of the offending vehicle does not have a valid license on the date of the accident, Gujarat High Court has held.
In an appeal filed against an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had held that the insurance company would be liable to indemnify an award for accidental damage even if the license of the person driving the offending vehicle had expired, Justice RM Chayya, overturned the award of the Tribunal. It stated that in absence of any valid license, the insurance company must be exonerated from the liability of payment of indemnity.
Case Title: Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena v. Government Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 13
The Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained delay or laches in filing the writ petition is a sufficient cause for a Court to refrain from exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In an appeal challenging the settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings a decade ago, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri observed that the principle of 'delay defeats equity' shall be applicable in the present scenario considering the petitioners have woken up from a deep slumber after several years without providing any rationale for such delay.
Every Offence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 14
The Gujarat High Court has held that when parties have settled the dispute amicably, the compounding of the offence is permitted with regard to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Justice Vipul Pancholi took note of Section 147 of the Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
Robbery By Five Persons Or More An Essential Element Of Dacoity: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 15
While affirming that the commission of robbery by five or more persons is an essential ingredient of dacoity under Section 391 of IPC, the Gujarat High Court refused to set aside the order of the Sessions Court acquitting the accused persons.
A Bench bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt observed,
"According to section 391 of IPC, dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons. Essential element of offence of dacoity under section 395 is that five or more persons must have participated in the offence of dacoity. No such evidence is coming on record so as to infer that respondent nos.3 to 6 actually participated in committing offence of dacoity."
Successive FIRs: Gujarat High Court Explains 'Test of Sameness' & 'Test of Consequence'
Case Title: Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 16
The Gujarat High Court recently delved into the 'Test of Sameness' and the 'Test of Consequence' that are relevant while determining the legality of a 'second FIR'.
Second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or crime is not permissible in law. However, to determine whether the second impugned FIR is based on the same offence and arises out of a different transaction, the above two tests may be applied.
Case Title: MAMTA BHAVESH DAVE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, GANDHINAGAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 17
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside the income re-assessment notice issued by the Income Tax Department to the partner of a firm, holding that there is no reason for taxing the remuneration from the capital account of the partnership firm since the partner had agreed not to derive any income thereof.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M Thakore noted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of the deduction for the remuneration/interest on the partners capital account however, the same was added back on the ground that it was not claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account.
Case Title: Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18
Although S.34 of the Evidence Act does not require a specific form of corroborative evidence, under it, a ledger by itself does not have evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent entries like roznama (Daily cash entries) or any witness or even orally by the power of attorney, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Niral R Mehta while admitting the appeal of the Plaintiff-Appellant ('Plaintiff') has observed that the ledger does not have any evidentiary value on its own under S.34 of Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by daily cash book entries/roznama. However, in the present case, since the suit proceeded ex-parte and the Plaintiff had produced other evidence duly stamped and signed which went unopposed by the Respondent and that Plaintiff's power of attorney had provided oral evidence substantiating the ledger, the Plaintiff was entitled to recover money from the Respondent.
Case Title: Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus The Arbitrator, Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 19
If an Act prescribes a mechanism to address certain grievances and the petitioner is ignorant of such statutory mechanism or chooses not to avail them and straightaway invokes High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under A.226 of the Constitution, then exercising such jurisdiction for the same is not in the fitness of things, Gujarat high Court has held.
In a writ petition seeking stay of the arbitration proceedings on account of a past working relationship between the Arbitrator and the Respondent, Justice Ashutosh J Shastri, while emphasising the remedies available to the Petitioner under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator, dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Ranjitprasad Chandradevram Rajvanshi Properitor Of Shree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 20
Various applications seeking registrations of FIR are being filed before the High Court directly without approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Gujarat High Court has observed.
According to Justice Vipul Pancholi, this is in contravention of the Supreme Court's observations on the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The Bench, therefore, rejected the Petition filed under Article 226 seeking registration of FIR basis the written complaint filed by him with the Respondent-Police Authority.
Less Graves Cannot Be A Ground To Vest Kabrastan Land In Govt: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, Thro Managing Trustee Versus Collector
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 21
"One cannot expect that graveyard should be full always and if there are less graves, it cannot be said to be a ground to vest the land in Government," the Gujarat High Court has held.
Justice Dr. AP Thaker made this observation while considering a petition filed by the Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust for quashing the order passed by the Collector in 2006, vesting the kabrastan land in the Government.
Case Title: Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 22
While dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, the Gujarat High Court has held.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt added, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. Making this observation, it dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order of Sessions Court, acquitting the accused from charge of Murder.
Case Title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 23
The Gujarat High Court today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in view of Centre's notification giving additional charge of DRT-I, Ahmedabad to the presiding officer of DRT-II till March 31, 2022, or till the permanent appointment of a member is made.
At the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R. Mehta also asked the ASG Devyang Vyas to make efforts for the appointment of a permanent member as soon as possible so that the presiding officer of DRT II isn't burdened with work.
Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs Shantuben Sanjaybhai Mer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 24
The consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice", the Gujarat High Court observed recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi made this observation while hearing a Petition under Article 227, against an order of the District Judge for condonation of delay of 132 days caused in preferring the civil appeal against the judgement passed by the Judge.
Case Title: Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 25
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ('Act') envisages 'interim measures' and the Courts must not adjudicate a substantive issue at this stage, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. Further, once jurisdiction under Section 9 is invoked and the remedy has been exhausted, similar interim measures cannot be claimed by a party before the arbitral tribunal, as this may give rise to two orders simultaneously- one by the court and another by the arbitral tribunal.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Niral Mehta was hearing First Appeals (clubbed due to inter-related issues) challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court at Surat under Section 9 of the Act.
Encroachment Over Public Land Can't Be Retained Citing Right To Shelter: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 26
While dismissing a PIL seeking to restrain the Railway authority from evicting slum dwellers until rehabilitation, the Gujarat High Court has held that the right to shelter is not a ground to continue encroachment on a public land. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri recalled the observations made by a previous Bench in this regard:
"The debate as regards the rights of encroachers over public land vis a vis the right to shelter should come to an end. The right to shelter and encroachment are two different facet. An encroacher may save himself from being forcibly evicted only if during his period of stay over the encroached public land any enforceable legal right has crystallized in his favour. Otherwise, merely by asserting the Right to Shelter , an encroacher, over public land, cannot say that he cannot be evicted."
Case Title: Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 27
While inquiring into a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the Petitioner seeking the release of her son from Special Operational Group, the Gujarat High Court has remarked,
"the least that is expected of the person who has been given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of a person on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned."
This observation was made in reference to the wide powers that the Central Government is vested with to inquire into the nationality of a person and deport the person if not found to be an Indian national.
Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage Is Not Proper: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28
The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper. Justice AP Thaker remarked,
"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Case Title: Firoz Hajibhai Sodha vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 29
The statement by a co-accused under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act can be treated as a clue or piece of information for initiating and conducting an investigation to find out whether there is any independent and satisfactory material for further investigation, the Gujarat Court has clarified. The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi made this observation while hearing an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR for charges under sections 65(e), 116B, 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Case Title: C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 30
"It is a settled proposition of law that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would lie only in respect of any 'enforceable debt'", the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi made this observation in connection with an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the CJM Rajkot for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Gujarat High Court Grants Joint Custody Of Differently Abled Corpus To His Father & Major Daughter
Case Title: Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 31
In a peculiar case, where the corpus lost his memory up to 95% and his wife died by committing suicide, the Gujarat High Court has permitted the corpus' major daughter and his father to share joint custody of the corpus.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt further directed that once the second daughter of the corpus becomes a major, she will also have joint custody of the corpus and if, by then the corpus has completely cured and medically released, they can continue to look after him.
Depletion Of Sex Ratio Resulting Into More And More 'Exchange Marriages': Gujarat High Court
Case Title - SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 32
The Gujarat High Court has observed that the depletion of the sex ratio in the State of Gujarat is resulting in more and more cases of exchange marriages. It may be noted that it is a form of marriage involving an arranged and reciprocal exchange of spouses between two groups. The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt observed thus while hearing a case while uniting a couple after they were separated by the father of the woman as he wanted to marry her 'in exchange'.
Case Title: MINAKSHIBEN LAXMANBHAI PARALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 33
An order of termination referring to the FIR and case filed against the employee without conducting full departmental inquiry is bound to be stigmatic, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a petition under Article 226 challenging the communication which terminated the services of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Bench quashed and set aside the aforesaid communication.
Case Title: SAPNA GEHLOT W/O DEVENDRA SINGH GEHLOT THRU POA KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 34
Emphasising the significance of a mother's guardianship in the upbringing of her children, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Husband to hand over the custody of the three young children to the Petitioner-Mother situated in New Zealand. Coming down heavily on the Respondent-Husband, the Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Nirzar S Desai remarked tersely:
"Here is the husband who had with predesigned tact had taken the children away from natural guardian mother and the mother's passport also was taken away by him ensuring that she could not travel and could not follow him up. He also simultaneously initiated the legal proceedings for custody and divorce knowing fully well that the wife's passport was with him and she was unable to come to India."
Case Title: ARVIND LIMITED THROUGH AUTHO. REP. HARDIK MOTIWALA Versus SUO MOTU
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 35
Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollution from textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with high chemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluent management in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the Sabarmati River. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati has made this observation while declining reliefs to the textile industries which prayed the Court to permit the industries to reconnect the sewer lines to enable them to discharge industrial effluent into the sewer lines.
No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To Land Sold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: HIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD @ VIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 36
"When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land in question", the Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation in a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department ('SSRD') vesting the Petitioner's land with the Government.
Gujarat High Court Grants Protection To Young Couple Wishing To Marry
Case Title: HITESHKUMAR NILESHBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 37
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt while granting protection to a young couple wishing to marry each other, admitted the writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Jayaben Shrimali from the care of the District Legal Service Authority, Banaskantha.
The Court had, on an earlier occasion, granted protection to the corpus who was interested in marrying the Petitioner Hiteshkumar Prajapati but was pressurised to state that he was below the age of 21 years. She was accordingly granted accommodation at a Women Protection Home until the Petitioner turned 21 year of age on 07.02.2022. She was granted security and basic amenities by the DLSA Full Time Secretary and the Administrator.
Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: DINESHBHAI DHUDABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT and ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 38
Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav while allowing the Petition challenging the order terminating the Petitioner's services has observed as follows;
"The employer is not allowed to hire and fire even if the employee, maybe ad hoc or probationer, and the services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice."
Case Title: SONALBEN BHANABHAI TADVI-MINOR THROUGH UNCLE & 2 other(s) Versus MADHUBEN BHAGUBHAI TADVI & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 39
Affirming that it is not necessary under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted in the death of the victim, the Gujarat High Court has imposed liability on the insurance company to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.
The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep N Bhatt ordered this in connection with the First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act by the Appellants who were dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Case Title: H.K.THAKUR Versus NAZIR NOORMOHMED KARA & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 40
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial Court. The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra M Sareen observed,
"in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the Accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his Acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."
Case Title: M/S. RAGHUNANDAN ENTERPRISE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 41
There is a fine distinction between a case where a partner of a firm assigns his/her share in favour of a third person and a case where a partner constitutes a sub-partnership with his/her share in the main partnership, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore while hearing a Writ Petition filed by a Partnership Firm, seeking to quash an order of the Income tax Department which attached the land of the firm as the property of an Assessee.
Case Title: BHAVESH KHIMABHAI PANDIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 42
Affirming that the nature of duties of an Electrical Assistant are "onerous", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav at the Gujarat High Court has declined to allow the Petition of a colour-blind candidate seeking the quashment of "unfit certificate" for the said post.
The Petitioner had applied for the post of an Electrical Assistant and was accordingly, sent for medical examination wherein he was declared unfit basis colour vision blindness. Thereafter, the impugned certificate was issued to him by the Civil Hospital Ahmedabad stating that he was unfit for the position.
The Court noted that this issue was squarely covered by the High Court in SCA No. 6217 of 2021 with 8611 of 2020. In the aforesaid decision, the Petitioner had been appointed as an Apprentice Lineman with the Electricity Company without any mention of his colour blindness. He had contended that if he was found fit for carrying out his duties as lineman, then there should not have been a disqualification for being appointed as an Electrical Assistant. The Ophthalmology Institute, in turn, specifically termed him "unfit" for the aforesaid post.
Case Title: RAJUBHAI KANUBHAI BHARWAD Versus SOUTH INDIAN BANK
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 43
Considering that the Appellants were ready and willing to deposit INR 20 lacs and the fact that the property which was likely to be auctioned was residential premises wherein two families were residing, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Bank to not dispossess the family from the property until 11th March 2022. The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai was hearing an appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent which sought relief from dispossession of property which was going to be auctioned.
Case Title: BILKISBANU (BILKISBANO) HANIFKHAN @ KALO MUNNO AMIRKHAN JATMALEK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 44
The Gujarat High Court recently denied bail to an accused under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Act, 2015, stating that accused was prima facie a part of an 'organised crime syndicate' involved in highway thefts.
'Organized Crime Syndicate', defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organised crime.
Financial Crisis Can Be One Of The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: NANDLAL NAMDEV OTWANI Versus VIJAY JAYPRAKASH AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 45
"Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay," the Gujarat High Court has held. The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation with regard to a Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring an appeal from an order wherein the Applicant was restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay.
Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.
"Condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow the debit of amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future," observed Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore.
Case Title: RAJESHBHAI JESINGBHAI DAYARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
The Gujarat High Court has held that to prosecute a person under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it must be established that the accused had knowledge of the victim's caste.
"If we refer Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, it must be within knowledge of the accused person that such person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. It is nowhere alleged by the complainant that the accused persons were having knowledge that the complainant was the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member," Justice BN Karia opined.
Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
The Gujarat High Court has refused to stall the redevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting that public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties. Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati observed, "Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration."
Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant Anticipatory Bail: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.
Case Title: Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vs Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that while exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Courts/ Tribunals must factor in the nature of employment, whether public or private.
Section 11A empowers Labour Courts/ Tribunals to lessen the punishment of 'discharge or dismissal from service' for employee's misconduct and direct reinstatement on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.
Case title - J. v. State Of Gujarat (name concealed intentionally)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Gujarat State to ensure that all the police stations in the state have a panel of lawyers to aid the victims of the sexual assault crimes in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 1995 decision.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee issued this order after noting that the Supreme Court had issued, inter alia, the following 4 directions in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 14], and which are not being followed in the state of Gujarat
Case Title: MAHESHBHAI BHURJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that in dispensing with departmental inquiry, the authority must arrive at a satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure and it must record reason to show that such satisfaction is arrived at on objective facts and not on whims and caprice.
Further, Justice Sangeeta Vishen observed that parties concerned will be put in an embarrassing position cannot be a ground to dispense with the inquiry.
Case Title: PARULBEN NATWARLAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
"When a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is reserved," the Gujarat High Court held recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a Special Civil Application filed by one Parulben Patel, seeking appointment to the post of Live-Stock Inspector (Class III), and that the requirement for having 10th class certificate in English be relaxed.
Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MUKESHBHAI BHIMSINGBHAI RAJPUT & 4 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
The Gujarat High Court has recently held it to be a well-settled principle of law that "merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle in the license does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver is not holding valid and effective driving license."
Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed this in connection with a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act ('MV Act') wherein the Appellant-Insurance Company was aggrieved with the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation worth INR 1,55,000 with 9% interest pa to the claimants (driver) and owner jointly and severally.
Case Title: SOLANKI VIPULKUMAR VIRABHAI Versus INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SECTION (IBPS)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 55
"The provisions of the 2016 (Rights of Person with Disability) Act do not envisage a situation to give appointment to a person in absence of any vacancy in the category," the Gujarat High Court has held.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed so while hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the Petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, was aggrieved by non-appointment to the Saurashtra Gramin Bank, for the reason that no vacancy for visually impaired (VI) category was requisitioned.
Case Title: DINESH SHARAN THAKUR Versus DR. M K SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 56
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that merely appointing more experienced or senior candidates to an administrative post cannot be said to be stigmatic to the predecessor.
In saying so, the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav has dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner, former HOD (Anesthesia) at a medical college, challenging his removal and appointment of rather senior candidate.
Case Title: GUJARAT RAJYA HOTEL FEDERATION & 9 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
"It is cardinal rule of interpretation, that if a statute explicitly mentions a particular process or method, the same has to be stringently and mandatorily followed, and the Courts cannot interpret the same in any other manner when the words of the statue are precise and unambiguous", the Gujarat High Court has observed.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has made this observation in a writ petition seeking to quash the notifications which reduced the cash value of the total wage of hotel workers from 33.3% to 19% vide a 15.12.2001 notification.
Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In Appointment At Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA Versus PRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.
Justice Biren Vaishnav held,
"taking a stand four and half years after his appointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it is a mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four and half years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."
Case Title: Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. RMC Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 59
"…it is expressly provided that defendant shall be served with the plaint and the annexures of the plaint, therefore it necessary implies that all the documents which are part of the plaint as annexures are required to be supplied to the defendant while serving the summons", the Gujarat High Court has affirmed yesterday.
The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Samir J. Dave upheld this in connection with a Special Civil Application challenging the rejection of the Applicant's leave to defend on grounds of delay.
Case Title: AYESHABEN WD/O. AHMED ADAM ALINATHA & 8 other(s) Versus HURIBEN ISMAIL ALI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 60
"Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless," the Gujarat High Court remarked.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi was hearing a writ petition challenging the judgement of the First Appellate Court which condoned delay of 2 years and 5 months in the filing of execution petition against the judgement of the Civil Judge, without assigning proper reasons.
Case Title: Keshavbhai Mohanbhai Bhut vs Ranabhai Kalabhai Senta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Affirming the Trial Court's decision of dismissing a private complaint on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature, the High Court observed that the Trial Court had duly followed the procedure under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition under Art 227 wherein the Petitioner had challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision application of the Petitioner against the order of Magistrate, dismissing his private complaint under Section 203 CrPC.
Case Title: SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
The Gujarat High Court affirmed a coordinate bench judgment which held that only the persons on whom lay the ultimate burden to pay the tax would be entitled to get a refund of the same.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore have upheld this in a writ application seeking refund from State under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The refund sought was to the tune of INR 2,30,11,188.
Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 63
The Gujarat High Court released the confisticated cash and goods as the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department delayed issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) beyond statutory time period.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak has observed, "it is quite unfathomable as to why the time limit is not adhered to and issuance of the show cause notice has been delayed beyond the statutory time period and hence, intervention will be necessary at the end of this Court by keeping open the rights of the respondents to initiate adjudication process afresh in accordance with law."
Case Title: Messers Filatex India Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 64
The High Court ruled that the input or output ratios to be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has directed Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, but keeping in mind the formula of input or output ratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exported goods.
Case Title: M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 65
The High Court came down heavily on the Goods and Service Tax Department for technical glitches in the portal.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the writ petitioner/ taxpayer has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents/ department to provide a solution and take care of the technical error and glitch that occurred as regards furnishing the GSTR-6 return for recording and distributing the Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.
Case Title: YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
"Mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused," the High Court affirmed.
The Bench comprising Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was hearing an application under Section 439 for offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Case Title: M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 67
The High Court has held that Input Tax Credit received from input service distributor lying unutilized in electronic credit ledger is liable to be refunded.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore directed the respondent/department to process the claim of refund made by the writ petitioner/assessee for the unutilized IGST Credit lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger under Section 54 of the CGST Act 2017.
Case Title: SUKESHI VIJAYBHAI BHATT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 68
The Gujarat High Court has recently upheld, "with regard to the legality and effect of sanctioned Town Planning Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act as well as Gujarat Town Planning Act and this Court as well as Supreme Court has time and again held that once the Draft Scheme is sanctioned by the State Government it partakes the character of statute."
Consequently, Justice AJ Desai and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee have refused to grant compensation to the Appellants/Petitioners.
The High Court made these observations while hearing an LPA wherein the Appellants had challenged the CAV judgement by the Single Judge which had refused to grant them compensation under the Town Planning Scheme ('Scheme').
Case Title: CHAUDHARY PRAVINBHAI REVABHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
The Gujarat High Court has admitted the criminal appeal challenging the quashment of the bail application for offences under Section 323, 332, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.
The Bench comprising Justice BN Karia has observed that the Appellant herein had not used any abusive words regarding the caste of the Complainant and was not aware of the caste of the Complainant, either.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant-Authorities and confirmed the order of the acquittal by the lower Court on the grounds that the Respondent-Accused was not made aware of his right for being searched before the Magistrate, thereby breaching Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt said,
"IO while acting on prior information and before making search of a person, it is imperative for him to inform the respondent-accused about his right to sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act for being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for making search in their presence. It also appears that neither such procedure is followed..."
Case Title: RAGHUVERSINH CHANDRASINH SARVAIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
"While conferring benefits viz. pensionary benefits, calculation of the entire service rendered even prior to the benefit of the regular pay scale being conferred needs to be considered for the purpose of awarding pensionary benefits (from the date of initial appointment as a daily wager)," the High Court affirmed in reference to Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing a Special Civil Application under Article 226 wherein the Petitioner sought direction to Respondent Authorities to consider him as permanent workman and clear arrears of monthly wages, revision of 6th and 7th Pay Commission pay-scale benefits along with 12% simple interest per annum.
Case Title: Archana Mukesh Raval v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
"Corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance", the High Court reiterated.
In observing so, it has refused to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 384, 114 and 294B and 506(2) of IPC and Sections 7,12,13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Case Title: Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The High Court affirmed that "in deciding the bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial."
Observing thus, the Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi granted bail to an accused under the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017.
"Here, taking into consideration the course of investigation adopted by the Department, the evidence, so collected, the trial will take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is for five years," it remarked.
First Version Of The Story Reliable; Exaggeration May Occur With Passage of Time: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat vs Natvarsinh Prabhatsinih Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
"In normal circumstances, we believe that, the first version is showing the true story of the complaint. If the version is changed at the time of deposition, it means there may be exaggeration in the version by passage of time," the High Court opined in connection with a challenge to the acquittal order of the Sessions Court.
It was the Complainant's case that Accused armed with an axe, stick, spear, sharp-edged weapon came to the house of the Complainant and tried to loot a water tanker worth INR 20,000 belonging to the Complainant. When the Complainant tried to prevent them, the Accused got provoked and demolished the household times, beat the family members of the Complainant and threatened to kill them. Accordingly, an FIR was filed under Sections 395, 427, 506(2) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, during the trial, the prosecution presented 13 witnesses to bring home the charges. However, the trial court, after examining various evidence, acquitted the Accused.
Case Title: Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
"It is settled law that, in order to bring a case within provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of the offence, person who is said to have abetted the alleged suicide, must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate commission of suicide", the High Court held.
The Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC praying for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging a government order which permitted Taluka Development Officer, who is an officer under the Panchayat Department, to issue caste certificates under the Gujarat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2018.
The petitioner-Trust had challenged the GO stating that caste certificate can be issued only by the Revenue Authorities not below the rank of Mamlatdar. It was argued that by way of the impugned order of the State authorities, there was a dilution of the stringent provisions of law in issuing caste certificates.
Case Title: Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v. Deputy Executive Engineer
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
The High Court has affirmed the order of the Labour Court determining that the Petitioner-workman was not entitled to reinstatement on the ground that there was discrepancy in his deposition and the documents produced by him.
The Petitioner herein had claimed that he had joined the services of the Respondent in 1983 and was performing the duties of the labourer/table work as a daily wager. Since he possessed educational qualifications, he was also given office table work. However, it was alleged by him that he was terminated orally in September 1988 without due process under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Aggrieved, he approached the Labour Court which dismissed his application in December 2007.
Case Title: Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities to consider regularizing the services of Petitioner-employees, working on contractual basis on interceptor boats for coastal security in the State's Home Department since over 11 years.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav noted that the Petitioners had been recruited, albeit, on a contractual basis, after a public advertisement and a duly constituted selection committee consisting of the Additional Secretary, Law & Order, Director of Sainik Welfare Board, a representative each of the police, navy and coats guard respectively and a Jilla Sainik Kalyan Officer.
Case Title: Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a Rohingya woman alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Passport Act and Sections 13, 14A(a) and 14A(b) of Foreigners Act.
The Applicant had submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the role of the Applicant, it was suitable to be released on bail. Per contra, the Respondent-Authority vehemently contended that the nature of the offence was grave and bail should not be granted.
Intention Or Knowledge Essential To Attract Section 307 IPC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
"What is material to attract offense under section 307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge with which all the acts are done irrespective of its results", the Gujarat High Court has held recently.
Justice Sandeep Bhatt made this observation in connection with a criminal appeal challenging the order of acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149/143 (Unlawful assembly), 307 (Attempt to murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
The Gujarat High Court has held that when proceedings against a driver are instituted for negligence causing a motor accident, then such driver's statements cannot form part of the charge sheet filed against him.
"The copy of charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial", Justice Umesh Trivedi opined.
Case Title: Janakbhai @ Alpeshbhai Mafatbhai Rabari & 1 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
The Gujarat High Court permitted compounding of offence under Section 323 of IPC, notwithstanding that the accused was also originally charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi noted that the Court below had acquitted the Petitioners-accused for alleged commission of offences under Sections 504, 506(2), 427 read with 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and no appeal against such acquittal was preferred by the complainant/ State.
Case Title: Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Kumarkhaniya (Devipujak) & 3 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on the police for being "swayed by the fact that the Petitioners belong to a particular community" while investigating activities of theft and other wrongs under Sections 328 and 394 of IPC has expressed dismay at the "apathy of the police officials, more particularly senior officers…"
Justice Nikhil Kariel was hearing a special criminal application filed by the Petitioners involving "extreme excess" by the police authorities including senior officers of the level of DySP and SP who were responsible for conducting an impartial inquiry. The Bench noted that the victims, members of a certain community, were earning their living through honest occupation when an FIR was filed against two unknown males and unknown females. According to the inquiry conducted by Respondent No. 6, the Petitioners 1 and 2 (brothers) were passing on a motorbike and were intercepted by the police. When they did not stop, they slipped and were caught by the police. It was observed that the only evidence against the Petitioners was their own confession which was used for submitting the chargesheet. Subsequently, the charges against the Petitioners did not stand during trial.
Case Title: Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel (Deleted) v. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
The Gujarat High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to the Applicants-accused in connection with an alleged case of cheating to the tune of Rs. 1,000 crore.
It was alleged that the applicants had misused terms and conditions of agreement and disbursed only Rs. 9 crore, with object to take over the company and its properties worth approximately Rs.1000 crores.
While allowing the plea for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused charged for alleged commission of offences under Section 120B, 420, 406 and 114 of IPC, Justice Ilesh Vora said,
"prima-facie, it appears that the dispute is purely a civil in nature. The principal accused Bharat Patel is passed away. The applicants have cooperated in the investigation. Whole case is based on documentary evidence and same has been collected by the IO during the course of investigation."
Case Title: Dilip Bhavanishankar Yadav v. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 85
"Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985", the Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra Sareen was hearing a special civil application against the order of detention dated December 2021 against the Petitioner herein under Section 3(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Mayank Jayantbhai Shah S/O Jayant Manharlal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
The Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to the Director of a chemical company, in connection with disposal of the hazardous waste material produced by it in a creek, causing injury to two persons.
The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi noted that the company had entered into an agreement with M/S Sangam for transporting the waste material to the treatment plant in accordance to CPCB Co-processing guidelines 2016 and 201. Thus, it held,
"Sangam was authorised to provide the work of collection, transportation of hazardous waste material to Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited plants at Odhisa, Karnataka and Bihar, and the authorisation for transportation of hazardous waste materials was in accordance to CPCB Co-processing guidelines 2016 and 2017, and therefore, it would be the responsibility of the transporter to take waste by-products to its destination. The petitioner company or the petitioner himself would have no knowledge of any misdeed of the transporter. The liability would lie on the company who engages the transporter and it is the duty of the transporter to see that the said waste product reaches plant or to its destination."
Case Title: A B C (Victim) vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed the plea of a minor rape victim to terminate her 6 weeks old pregnancy, on the ground that if pregnancy continues, it would cause lifelong mental agony to the her coupled with socio-economic problems.
"Petitioner is pregnant because of forcible rape by the accused...because of continuation of pregnancy, it would cause or constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the minor – victim coupled with the fact that bearing and rearing of child in the womb would create a great mental agony to her for her entire life and invite many other socio-economical problems. This can be said to be a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman."
Case Title: Shantaben Ambalal Patel & 1 Other(S) Versus Sunitaben Vijaykumar Joshi
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
Affirming the settled law that Appellate Courts must not disturb the discretionary order of the Trial Court at interim stage even if second view of the matter is possible, the Gujarat High Court has allowed an appeal challenging lower court's order declining to grant interim injunction in respect of a construction, allegedly interfering with Appellant's easementary rights.
The Bench of Justice AP Thaker ordered status quo with respect to the construction towards the eastern wall of the Plaintiff's residence till both the parties lead their evidence in support of their claim and counter-claim. It said,
"Prima facie, it appears that the plaintiffs have put up this construction in his own land keeping certain portion of land open for common wall. Now, on perusal of the Photograph produced in the matter, it clearly appears that the constructions of the defendant is completely adjacent with the wall of the plaintiffs. At this juncture, it is also pertaining to note that defendant has also filed counter claim for closure of the window and balcony of the plaintiffs which is on the eastern side wall of the property of the plaintiff. Thus, prima-facie it appears that when suit was filed there was no construction, obstructing the window and balcony of the plaintiff's property on the eastern side. Now, there is allegation and counter allegation, regarding the easementary right as well as regarding illegal construction and there is also counter claim for removal of window and balcony. Under these facts and circumstances, it is necessary that status-quo be maintained till both the parties lead their evidence in support of their claim and counter-claim."
Case Title: Chauhan Mahmadrafik Abdul Latif Versus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited Through Authorized Person
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
The Gujarat High Court has imposed a fine of INR 50,000 on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited while holding as follows;
"since it prima facie appears that the exclusion of the petitioner was not by an accident and further, in any case, the respondent organization, more particularly, being a Public Sector Undertaking under the Government of India was required to act fairly, more particularly, while considering the candidature of an Ex-Servicemen candidate, which the respondents have not done, hence this is a fit case for imposition of costs. Thus, costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) is also directed to be paid by the respondents to the present petitioner."
Department Cannot Block GST ITC Without Assigning Any Reason: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s New Nalbandh Traders Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 90
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the department cannot block the Input Tax Credit (ITC) without assigning any reason to the assessee.
The writ petitioner/assessee, a proprietary concern, is in the business of trading in M.S. scrap for the past 13 years. The proprietary firm purchases the scraps from different suppliers and sells them to different entities.
Case Title: Manoj @ Munnabhai Ashwinbhai Somabhai Parmar Versus Director General Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
"Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Act," the Gujarat High Court has upheld today.
Justice AP Thaker was hearing a petition against the detention of the Petitioner by the Respondent authorities under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988.
Case Title: Ramsingbhai Saburbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 92
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed and set aside the order of termination of an employee, who was convicted for corruption, on the ground that he was neither given a show cause notice before such termination nor an opportunity to explain his case.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav directed the employer to reinstate the employee to his original post along with consequential benefits and backwages. However, liberty is granted to pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the reply which may be filed.
Case Title: Union Of India Thro Amitkumar, Intelligence Officer Or His Successor In Office Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the acquittal of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the ground that she was merely accompanying her husband and had no knowledge of contraband being carried in the bag.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora remarked that her conscious possession as understood under the law does not surface even a reasonable doubt.
The development ensued in a State-appeal, preferred against the order of Special Judge, acquitting the Accused No. 2 (wife of accused no. 1) for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Probate Shall Be Granted Only To An Executor Appointed By The Will: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
The Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi of the Gujarat High Court has been hearing an Article 227 petition challenging the order of the Trial Judge pertaining to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
The brief facts of the case were that the deceased mother of the Petitioners/Appellants was the owner of certain movable and immovable properties and had executed a will in 2013 in favour of the Petitioners/Appellants. Subsequent to the death of the mother, the Petitioners became owners of the properties and preferred an application seeking the probate of the will while the Trial Judge invited objections against the application.
The Respondent therein filed an objection against the issuance of probate in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners therefore preferred the application in question in 2016 seeking amendment of probate application praying for the replacement of the word Probate by Letter of Administration. This application was rejected and hence the petition was filed.
Fraudulent Claim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail
Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Gita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing the input tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties, which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.
The applicant, a designated partner and managing director of "Utkarsh Ispat LLP," which is in the business of purchasing mild steel scrap and, thereafter, converting it into mild steel billet. The department conducted a search and seizure operation at the factory and office premises of the LLP and at the residence of the applicant on the ground that several purchase transactions had been made from fictitious entities.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Injunction On Immovable Property Based On 'Agreement To Sell'
Case Title: Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vs Rameshbhai Hirabhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
The Gujarat High Court ordered interim injunction on an immovable property and restrained its owner from changing its status during the pendency of the suit, based on an agreement to sell arrived at between the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker observed,
"So far as the suit based on agreement to sell for specific performance of contract, even if that agreement to sell is not registered, same can be considered for collateral purpose... If there is contract of agreement to sell and the same is not refused by the defendant and further when legal notice has been issued to the defendant for purpose of that contract, if no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, then, there might be multiplicity of litigation in case defendant transfers the property during the pendency of the litigation."
Case title - Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v. Directorate General Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Quashing a detention order passed u/s 3 (2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act], the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday observed that simpliciter registration of FIR by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
With this, the Bench of Justice A. P. Thaker ALLOWED the plea moved by detenue Mohsinkhan and QUASHED the impugned order of detention (dated 29.11.2021) passed by the respondent – detaining.
Case Title: Chandra Darshan Developers Through Partner Versus Hiralal Gopalbhai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
"The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial", the Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker was considering an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) against the order passed by the Magistrate Court in a Special Civil Suit restricting the Defendants (Appellants, herein) from selling, transferring, mortgaging or passing any interest to third party in the suit property.
Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.
The writ was against the the cancellation of the GST registration. The chartered accountant of the assessee wanted the HUF registration to be cancelled. Instead of inserting the registration number of the HUF, inadvertently, the CA inserted the registration number of the proprietorship. In such circumstances, the registration of the proprietary firm under the GST was cancelled.
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVAL DEEPAKKKUMAR SHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide."
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attaching the personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues were settled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.
The writ-petitioner/assessee, a company which is a taxable entity, has incurred liability towards the payment of tax under the provisions of the GVAT Act. The company incurred a liability in the year 2013. The company preferred an application under the "Vera Samadhan Yojana, 2019". An application was filed on November 6th, 2019. In accordance with the scheme, the company was required to pay an amount, and upon deposit of the amount, the interest to the tune of Rs.60,53,560 was waived. The company deposited the amount under the scheme and discharged its total liability.