Nominal Index State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355 Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356 Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357 Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358 Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S...
Nominal Index
State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355
Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356
Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357
Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358
Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S The Central Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359
Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S Ketan Chandravadan Soni 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360
Bank Of Baroda V/S Harshadgiri Chanchalgiri Goswami 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361
Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Meraman Dana Harijan & 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363
Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 364
Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/s Chairman & 31 others 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365
Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 366
Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order acquitting four persons accused in a Murder case on the ground that there are several material contradictions in the versions presented by the main witnesses and the weapon recovered did not have blood stains to establish the commission of the offence.
A bench of Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen further noted that all witnesses were related to each other and could not deemed as 'independent witnesses.' They had prior enmity with the Accused and were interested in getting them convicted. Thus, it was concluded:
"The evidence of all the main witnesses is contradictory to each other, which is rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. As a result, the judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge is sound on the aspect of law and facts. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the trial court has been rightly appreciated by the trial court. No apparent error on the face of the record is found from the judgement."
Case Title: Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356
The Gujarat High Court has held that commission of infraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not be sufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusion that there is no alternate but to preventively detain an accused.
The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen held:
"No doubt, neither the possibility of launching of a criminal proceedings nor pendency of any criminal proceedings is an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention. But, failure of the detaining authority to consider the possibility of either launching or pendency of criminal proceedings may, in the circumstances of a case, lead to the conclusions that the the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the vital question whether it was necessary to make an order of preventive detention."
Case Title: Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357
The Gujarat High Court has held that the relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act is no longer discretionary, with notification of the 2018 Amendment Act.
Whereas the unamended Section 20 stipulated that the specific relief "may" be granted at the discretion of the court, the amending Act substitutes Section 20 and renders the specific relief as regular statutory remedy.
Case Title: Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that offences under Sections 218 and 219 of the IPC which pertain to a public servant framing incorrect records for saving a person from punishment and making reports in a corrupt manner, cannot be invoked without initiation of inquiry or in absence of any evidence.
In the event that these provisions are wrongly invoked such that they would adversely affect and prejudice the career of the public servant, the High Court can expunge the relevant parts from the judicial order of the Magistrate.
Case Title: Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S The Central Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359
The Gujarat High Court, while declining to exercise its writ jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, has held that adjudication of matter would have to wait till the stage of Section 13(4) was reached. Thereafter, the aggrieved person can file a securitisation appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Section 13(2) of the Act refers to the issuance of notice to the borrower for discharging his liabilities within 60 days in case of default in payment of debt. While Section 13(4) pertains to declaring the accounts of the borrower as an NPA and thereafter, taking possession of secured assets and appointing a person to manage such assets.
Case Title: Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S Ketan Chandravadan Soni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360
The Gujarat High Court refused to initiate contempt proceedings against a party to property dispute, said to have wilfully disobeyed court's status quo order by making an application for before the concerned Revenue Authority for mutation of the entry in the revenue record, on the basis of the registered Sale Deed.
The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi and Justice AP Thaker was of the view that such an application does not breach status quo with regard to the title and the encumbrance of the suit property, in any manner. It said,
"Opponent has neither got the Suit property transferred nor is there any encumbrance created...Just because the opponent made an application for entering her name in the revenue record, it cannot be said that there is willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court."
Case Title: Bank Of Baroda V/S Harshadgiri Chanchalgiri Goswami
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed that a 'permanent part-time' employee is entitled to grant of pension in terms of Dena Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai and Justice Mauna Bhatt thus upheld the single bench order directing grant of pension to a part-time cleaner, who had voluntarily retired from service.
Case Title: Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362
The Gujarat High Court has clarified in respect of Section 306 of IPC that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot amount to 'instigation.'
Therefore, if in the instant case, the Accused/Applicant had uttered 'you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die', then it would not constitute instigation as u/s 306.
These observations were made in connection with a Section 482 application challenging the FIR against the Accused for offences u/s 306 and 114 of IPC.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Meraman Dana Harijan & 6 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363
The Gujarat High Court has held that liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the motor accident victim was travelling in a goods vehicle and such accident took place prior to the 1994 Amendment Act. Justice Hemant Pracchak explained:
"…the present appellant insurance company is exonerated from the liability fasten upon it as the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and it is clearly breach of the policy and therefore, the insurance company is not held liable…Considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the fact that the date of accident is of 9.1.1994 i.e. prior to the date of amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which has come into force in November 1994 and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
Case Title: Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 364
The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of 'premature retirement' become stigmatic if such order contains statements indicating misconduct or lack of integrity.
"Where orders have been passed which indicate blemish, disgrace, disrespute etc., and in that context if an order of termination or of compulsory retirement is seen, the same would amount to stigma by virtue of a statement made in the order."
B.Ed. Not "Bachelor Degree" Of Graduation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/s Chairman & 31 others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365
The Gujarat High Court has held that a B.Ed. Degree, i.e., Bachelor of Education, is not a Bachelor Degree of graduation since the said course, like 3-yrs-LLB course, can be perused only after one has graduated in any of the branches of arts or science.
In the same breath, the Court held that persons possessing a B.Ed. degree are over-qualified for positions having minimum prescribed qualification of Graduation and thus, rejection of their candidature for having more qualifications cannot be held to be bad in law.
Case Title: Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 366
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted bail to a 70 years old woman, having a two month old infant, for commission of offences u/s 406, 420, 114, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 14, 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act.
The primary allegations against the Applicant as per the FIR and the charge sheet was that she had introduced herself as a Customs Officer and had asked the Complainant to deposit INR 3.87 lacs in the bank account of another person, so as to aid the main accused. Thereafter, the Applicant had withdrawn the said amount and handed it over to the main accused. In lieu, she received INR 50,000. The APP opposed grant of bail basis the gravity of the offence.
Case title - Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to close down its sole slaughterhouse in the city on the occasion of a Jain festival.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed that the order of the AMC was applicable only for two days and that it was a reasonable restriction and did not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and therefore, the matter being meritless, was liable to be dismissed.
Other updates of the Week
Case Title: Nirbhaysinh Vijaysinh Raulji V/S State Of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court, while admitting that Courts must exercise restraint in matters involving correctness of answer keys, has concluded that in the event of ambiguity in questions/ multiple correct answers in a time-bound examination, the Court can interfere and provide relief.
"These petitioners apparently prima-facie appear to be the victims of framing of questions which appeared to be ambiguous or confusing. In the case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others 1983 4 SCC 309, which has been followed by the decisions while warning of judicial restraint, the Court has recommended that there must be a system of avoiding ambiguity in questions. This is one case where the two questions appear to be ambiguous," the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav observed.