NOMINAL INDEXIndian Hume Pipe Company Ltd Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 116Ishwarlal Kasturlal Pandya vs Ibrahimbhai Farukdin Vohra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 117Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 118M/S M N Trapasia versus Divisional Railway Manager (WA) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 119Botad Taluka Sahkari Kharid ......
NOMINAL INDEX
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
Ishwarlal Kasturlal Pandya vs Ibrahimbhai Farukdin Vohra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 118
M/S M N Trapasia versus Divisional Railway Manager (WA) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
Botad Taluka Sahkari Kharid ... vs Bhagirathbhai Kanubhai Khachar 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
Aryan Siris Garange (Arayan Shirish Garange) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
Alok Kistuchand Agarwal vs Sub Registrar 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 122
Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 123
M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
Richa W/O Kushal Mistry And D/O Hemantkumar Adhvaryu Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
Hiren Dahyabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
Aveshbhai @ Avalo Ganibhai Ghoniya Through Brother Azimbhai Ganibhai Ghoni V/S The District Magistrate And Collector & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
Judgments/Orders of the week
Case Title: Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
The High Court reiterated that sufficient cause is the paramount consideration while dealing with application for delay condonation and if sufficient cause is shown, the Court should generally condone the delay.
The Bench comprising Justice AC Joshi however added,
"If the sufficient cause is imbibed with the laxity and mala fides on the part of the delayer despite due knowledge, then Court should restrain itself from encouraging such practice and condone the delay."
Case Title: Ishwarlal Kasturlal Pandya vs Ibrahimbhai Farukdin Vohra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
The High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Vehicles Tribunal to the Applicant, working in an agricultural land, computing his "functional disability" to be 100%, after he sustained fracture injuries on both the legs, on head and right hand on being dashed by a Truck while riding his scooter.
The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed that the Tribunal had awarded compensation towards future loss of income. However, considering Applicant's 100% functional disability in terms of the Supreme Court decision in v. Ram Avtar Tomar, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced.
Case Title: Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 118
The High Court yet again came to the rescue of an inter-faith couple, by directing the State Police to protect the couple from their families who are opposed to their relationship.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt ordered that initially, the protection be provided for four months. Whichever place they attempt to settle, the SP/ACP of the concerned Zone shall look into the matter. Thereafter, if the couple continues to be at Ahmedabad, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City shall take a call after four months whether to continue such protection or not.
Case Title: M/S M N Trapasia versus Divisional Railway Manager (WA)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
The High Court ruled that unless the embargo placed under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is waived by the parties, the provisions of Section 12(5) would continue to be attracted.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that there cannot be a deemed waiver of Section 12(5) by merely issuing a letter or communication calling upon the opposite party to waive the embargo.
Case Title: Botad Taluka Sahkari Kharid ... vs Bhagirathbhai Kanubhai Khachar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
The High Court has recently granted relief to a workman who was terminated from his services via an oral communication, in violation of mandatory provisions pertaining to retrenchment under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered that the aggrieved workman be paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards lump-sum compensation to Respondent No.1-Workman, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service and 20% back-wages.
Case Title: Aryan Siris Garange (Arayan Shirish Garange) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has recently granted bail to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4,6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Justice AS Supehia observed:
"The first step of turning him into a hardcore criminal will be sending him behind bars. The moment he is allowed to go behind bars, the efforts to make him a good and law abiding citizen will get dented. The applicant is a young student studying in First Year college and it is expected from him to observe and follow the fundamental duties of a good citizen as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Alok Kistuchand Agarwal vs Sub Registrar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 122
"Once any immovable property is mortgaged / hypothecated towards secured creditors then having regard to the provisions contained in Section 2(zc) to (zf) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with the provisions contained in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the secured creditor will have the first charge on the secured assets", the High Court has affirmed recently.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore was hearing a writ petition filed by a secured creditor, aggrieved by a letter issued by the Sub-registrar, imposing charges and encumbrances over the secured assets.
Case Title: Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 123
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the provisional attachment should not hamper normal business activities of the taxable person.
The writ petitioner/assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling ingots, having a factory situated near Rajkot, Gujarat State. The assessee is duly registered under the GST Act.
The assessee claimed to have regularly paid output tax for three financial years. The assessee entered into business transactions only with genuine dealers who were registered taxable persons under the GST Act. In support, the assessee has placed on record, regularly maintained records of the purchase transactions, which include invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips, photographs of material being unloaded, material received inspection report etc.
Case Title: M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the coercive steps of the department for recovery of dues from Wipro when the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.
The writ petitioner, Wipro Ltd. is in the business of information technology services, including the sale of hardware and software, the sale of consumer products, and the supply and installation of solar power generation plants. The writ petitioner was registered under the VAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the relevant period.
Case Title: Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
The High Court has recently issued a writ directing the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise to initiate and complete the final assessment proceedings concerning the Applicant company and further release the Bank Guarantees in favour of the Applicant within two months. The Applicant company had also showed monetary losses worth INR 96,87,616 due to the bank guarantee charges and claimed compensation for the same in its writ application.
Case Title: I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
The High Court has directed the revenue to re-credit/restore the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of INR 1,39,49,810 in the electronic tax ledger of the writ petitioner . The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore was hearing a writ petition which sought from the Respondent-authorities to re-credit the ITC of INR 139,49,810 in the electronic credit ledger along with interest.
Case Title: Richa W/O Kushal Mistry And D/O Hemantkumar Adhvaryu Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
The High Court has allowed a writ seeking a direction upon the Registrar of Marriages to consider the petitioners' application for issuance of a fresh marriage certificate, mentioning the date on which a pompous wedding was held with 'saptapadi', rather than a former date on which the couple had exchanged varmala in presence of a small gathering.
Due to pandemic of COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed by the Government on public gathering, the writ applicants entered into marriage with a very small number of relatives attending the marriage. The marriage invitation was not prepared and the couple only performed the ceremonies of exchanging garlands, tying mangalsutra and applying sindhoor. However, the ceremony of "datta homa" and "Saptapadi" (i.e. taking seven steps around the sacred fire) were not performed.
Case Title: Hiren Dahyabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
The High Court quashed and set aside the order of termination issued against the Petitioner, sans any inquiry, merely on the basis of a FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It directed that the Petitioner be reinstated however, it refused to grant back-wages considering the principle of no work, no pay, as also applied by a Division Bench in similar facts in State of Gujarat vs Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor.
Case Title: Aveshbhai @ Avalo Ganibhai Ghoniya Through Brother Azimbhai Ganibhai Ghoni V/S The District Magistrate And Collector & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
"Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is : Was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation ? If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal", the High Court affirmed.
The Bench comprising Justice Nirzar S Desai was hearing a petition against the order of detention passed by the Respondent authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The Petitioner herein was detained and categorised as a 'dangerous persons' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.