NOMINAL INDEX Essar Steel Limited & 1 other(s) v State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 168 Jitendrabhai Arjanbhai Roy Versus The Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Rural Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 169 Axis Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 170 Virani Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 171 M/S S K Industries Through...
NOMINAL INDEX
Essar Steel Limited & 1 other(s) v State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 168
Jitendrabhai Arjanbhai Roy Versus The Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Rural Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 169
Axis Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 170
Virani Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 171
M/S S K Industries Through Sajid Ibrahim Memon Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 172
Vaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of GujaratVaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
State Of Gujarat vs Ajaybhai Champaklal Champaneri 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 174
The Ol Of M/S Neelnandan Polymers Limited (In Liqn) V/S Suresh Gopichand Keswani 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 175
Vivekkumar Kamalniranjan Kushwaha V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Essar Steel Limited & 1 other(s) v State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 168
The High Court reiterates the legal position and has allowed the civil application filed by Essar Steel Limited seeking declarations that the claims raised by the original espondent stand abated and extinguished in view of Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code read with the Resolution Plan and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Arjanbhai Roy Versus The Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Rural Finance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 169
The Gujarat High court has reiterated that removal of a person's name from the voters' list is not an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting invocation of High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that a person aggrieved must avail statutory remedy by filing election petition under Rule 28.
A Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Sandeep Bhatt affirmed the following observations made by a single judge,
"Once the process of election has been set in motion this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere in the election process. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 and relegate the writ applicant to avail statutory remedy by filing election petition under Rule 28.
The rejection of the writ-applicant's name from the voters' list results in exclusion of name of the writ-applicant from the voters' list...the writ-applicant can avail the benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing the election petition. The authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel and, confirm and amend the election and also to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside and the remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy."
Case Title: Axis Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 170
What came to be purchased by the writ-applicant in the auction proceedings conducted by the Bank of Baroda was a secured asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In such circumstances, the State cannot claim preference over the subject property for the purpose of recovery of the dues towards tax. It is not in dispute that the first charge was created in favour of the bank and the bank in exercise of its powers under the SARFAESI Act, put the subject property to auction", the Gujarat High Court has observed.
Case Title: Virani Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 171
Emphasizing on the importance of principles of natural justice in a "civilized society", the Gujarat High Court observed,
"the benefit of audi alteram partem principle was even extended to Adam and Eve, even by God before they were punished for disobeying His command. This signifies that even if the authority already knows everything and the person has nothing more to tell, even then this rule of natural justice is attracted, unless application of this rule would be a mere empty formality."
Case Title: M/S S K Industries Through Sajid Ibrahim Memon Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 172
The High Court has endorsed the "expeditious and judicious" disposal of case property so as to ensure that the owner such seized property does not suffer unnecessary losses and the authorities are also saved from maintaining custody of such property.
Justice Ilesh Vora, while dealing with a case involving 1,03,120 kilograms muddamla seized base oil worth Rs. 67,02,800 observed,
"the expeditious and judicious disposal of the case property would ensure that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused. Court or police would not require to keep the article in safe custody, as it would save the cost of storage etc."
Case Title: Vaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of GujaratVaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
The High Court permitted an American Citizen of Indian origin, who had moved a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of her daughters from her husband, to withdraw the plea while observing that every party has a "right" to withdraw the proceedings.
It however hoped, that since the matter involved two minor children, the parties will act in their best interest.
"While permitting withdrawal, which is the right of every party, this Court is of the opinion that to both the parties need to act in the best interest of their children and it is therefore desirable for them to attempt an amicable settlement," Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt observed.
Statement Of Co-Accused Can't Be Sole Basis To Convict Any Person: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat vs Ajaybhai Champaklal Champaneri
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 174
The High Court has reiterated that Statement of the co-accused or admission of the co-accused cannot be proved in evidence against the maker of it and it cannot be sole base to convict any person.
It also observed that the provisions of Sections 24-26 of the Evidence Act 'clearly' restrict the acceptance of such confession that are made or caused by inducement, threat, promise while referring to the charge against Accused persons.
Case Title: The Ol Of M/S Neelnandan Polymers Limited (In Liqn) V/S Suresh Gopichand Keswani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 175
The High Court recently exonerated the Directors of a Company, undergoing liquidation, over their failure to submit the Statement of Affairs of the Company with the Official Liquidator within stipulated period of 21 days from the date of winding up, under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Whereas the alleged delay in filing the statement was of 3 years, Justice Bhargav Karia stated that However taking into consideration the prevailing condition of Covid -19 Pandemic in the year 2020 and 2021, it can be said that the accused persons have committed default for not filing Statement of Affairs for more than one year.
Case Title: Vivekkumar Kamalniranjan Kushwaha V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted bail to a man accused under Sections 306, 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act for abetting the suicide of his wife by demanding dowry.
A Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi observed that given the fragile mental state of the deceased person and the fact that the trial would take a long time to conclude, it was a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of the Applicant.