Gujarat High Court Half Yearly Digest: January to June 2022 [Citation 1- 252]
CITATIONS- 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252 Monthly Digests Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: January & February 2022 [Citations 1-59] Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 60 To 101]Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 102-143]Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 144-192Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest:...
CITATIONS- 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
Monthly Digests
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: January & February 2022 [Citations 1-59]
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 60 To 101]
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 102-143]
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citations 144-192
Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations: 193 - 252]
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
Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
Symphony Limited Vs ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
Harkishanbhai Dahyabhai Lad vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 106
Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs The State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
Rajendra Amulakh Khimani Versus The University Grants Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
Somiben Arvindbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
M/S Bharmal Indane Service versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
Kameshbhai Niranjanbhai Sopariwala Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
State Of Gujarat Versus Paramjit @ Kali Himmatsingh Chima 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 115
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
Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133
Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 137
Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt Ltd versus Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed v. State Of Gujarat 1 other 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi Versus Hiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vs Commissioner Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
State Of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Titabhai Baraiya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
Shiv Garment Through Sole Prop. Rameshchandra Gigaji Maurya v. Suryaben Kantilal Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai Kuniya Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
Vijay Arvind Jariwala v. Umang Jatin Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
Bajaj Finance Ltd. Through Authorised Officer, Aniket Pareshbhai Desai versus Ld. District Collector, Navsari & 1 other(s) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Vijay Arvind Jariwala Versus Umang Jatin Gandhi Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
Godrej Agrovet Limited & 1 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 158
Principal Commissioner Versus Reliance Industries 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 159
Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
Harshad D Santoki S/O Devjibhai Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
Shree Vikas Co.Op. Bank ltd, (liq.) Through Sunil Laxmanrao Powle v. State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
Nathiben Lalitbhai Vegada Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 163
Panchal Zalakben Hardikbhai D/O Sanjaybhai Bhagubhai Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Leepee Enterprise versus Mehul Industries 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 165
Vijaybhai Punabhai Chavda Versus State Of Gujarat & 13 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
Chief Project Manager Versus Firoz Saheb Dargah Through Trustee Shaikh Onali Ismailji Visawaarvala 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
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
Jaydev Mulubhai Jaju vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 177
Hardasbhai Raymalbhai Gohil vs Sanjaybhai Arvindbhai Jabuani 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 178
Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 179
Madrasa-E-Anware Rabbani Waqf Committee V/S Surat Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 180
Rajendrakumar Manilal Jaiswal V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 181
National Insurance Co Ltd V/S Rajeen Rafiqahmed Vohra & 4 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 182
Amitkumar Babubhai Katara V/S The State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 183
Sumesh Engineers Private Limited V/S Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 184
Yamuna cables accessories pvt. Ltd. V/s desai enterprise 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 185
State Of Gujarat V Saurashtra Majur Mahajan Sangh 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 186
Subhashchandra Sanatan Mallik Through Babita Subhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Symphony Limited Versus Raj Cooling System Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/S Agriculture Produce Market Committee 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai Vaghela Through Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 another 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
Hamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/S Haiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Cazy Concepts and Mazes pvt. Ltd. & 1 other(s) v/s n. Venkta yayadri rao & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
Madhukantaben D/O Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
K News Channel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union Of India Thru The Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya Versus The Registrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
Aasifbhai Hajiabdul Bhaya V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
Adi Enterprises Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245
Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248
Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250
Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
JUDGMENTS/ORDER (JAN-JUNE 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.
Case Title: Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Averring that there was no delay in making payment of pensionary benefits as alleged by the Appellants, the Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere in the Letters Patent Appeal seeking Respondent authorities to pay all the consequential pensionary benefits and 18% interest on delayed payment.
The Appellant herein had his services terminated against which he and other persons had filed a reference which was allowed. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled to similar benefits as another similarly placed daily wager. The Appellant had also approached the Court by way of Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act wherein the Division Bench had observed:
"In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court. As much as pensionary benefits are extended and received by the applicant, during the pendency of this application, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to be proceeded further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."
Distinction Between "Attachment Of Property" And "Charge Over Property": Gujarat High Court Explains
Case Title: Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
"Attachment creates no charge or lien upon the attached property. It merely prevents and avoids private alienations; it does not confer any title on the attaching creditors", the Gujarat High Court affirmed in a judgment.
Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a writ application under Art 226 wherein the Applicant had prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the quashment of the order by Respondent No. 2 and thereby release the charge on the property of the Applicant
Case Title: Symphony Limited Vs ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is absolutely necessary before passing an order under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The writ petitioner/assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 at Rs. 197,12,28,420. Later, the return was revised at Rs. 197,12,28,420. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the CASS to verify a few issues.
Case Title: Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that merely on account of the name of a candidate figuring in the select list, the candidate would not acquire any indefeasible right for being appointed. However, this is not a completely unqualified proposition. The State cannot act in an arbitrary manner and the decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
It thereby reaffirmed the law laid down in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 wherein it was held:
"It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.... However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner."
Case Title: Harkishanbhai Dahyabhai Lad vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 106
The Gujarat High Court has held that past services of the daily-wagers where they have completed 240 days of continuous service as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, would qualify for pension.
Justice Biren Vaishnav, heavily relying on the case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Phedi, held,
"for counting the period for purposes of pension, the date of initial appointment needs to be taken into consideration and for the purposes of taking initial date of appointment those years in which the petitioners have completed 240 days have to be counted for the purposes of pension."
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
"It can be said that in interpreting a taxing statute, the equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax," Justice JB Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench was hearing a writ application under Art 226 wherein the Applicants had prayed for the quashment of the impugned notice issued under the Value Added Tax, 2003 for the payment of outstanding sum of INR 1,68,02,573 and attachment of the personal properties of the director and the brother of director. They also sought a stay on the notice until the disposal of the petition.
Case Title: Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs The State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to an Applicant-accused, alleged to be supplier of prohibited animals.
The Applicant was booked for alleged commission of offences under Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sections 6(a), 4, 3 and 8(2) of Gujarat Animals Preservation Act and Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act. The provisions pertain to animal cruelty, transportation of animals in a manner so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.
Gujarat High Court Stays Removal Of Vice-Chancellor Of Gujarat Vidyapith University
Case Title: Rajendra Amulakh Khimani Versus The University Grants Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
The Gujarat High Court has stayed the removal of the Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Vidyapith (Deemed to be University) Ahmedabad pursuant to the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in November 2021 directing the Chancellor to remove the Petitioner-Vice Chancellor.
The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the decision of the UGC and claimed that the removal was in breach of Regulation 10.12.2.E of the UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2019.
Case Title: Somiben Arvindbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
The Gujarat High Court has recently come to the rescue of small vegetable sellers by setting aside the notice of the Collector, asking them to vacate a government land for construction of a Police station.
The Court rejected the ground stated by the Collector that petitioners request for allotment of land cannot be acceded without public auction, because they are carrying on commercial purpose. It observed,
"petitioners are doing small business like that of selling of vegetables / fruits, etc. by keeping small sheds and lorries. Therefore, if that activities are considered, it cannot be termed as large scale commercial activities and, therefore, if the vocation of the petitioners are considered then it is of small retail business then the other government lands can be considered for allotment of appropriate portion of land, available in the vicinity to the petitioners."
Case Title: M/S Bharmal Indane Service versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that petition for referring the matter to arbitration cannot be disallowed on the ground that the dispute involves interpretation of policy guidelines.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that whether there is an arbitrable dispute or not and whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute is an issue which can be decided by the arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
The Gujarat High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to a man accused of forcefully converting religion of 37 Hindu families and 100 Hindus. It was also alleged that the Applicant lured them by offering financial assistance and converted a house constructed with Government funds to a place of worship — Ibadatgaah.
"Prima facie from the record produced by the prosecution, it appears that the present appellant has attempted to convert directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor any person abet such conversion. Considering the material placed on record before this Court as well as reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer to release the appellant on anticipatory bail, as prayed for," Justice BN Karia said.
Case Title: Kameshbhai Niranjanbhai Sopariwala Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
The Gujarat High Court recently refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue directions for registration of FIR on a complaint lodged by the Petitioner, observing that if such petitions are entertained then the High Courts will be flooded and will not be able to do any other work.
Justice AS Supehia refused to quash the closure report by the Respondent authorities and opined that the Petitioner had the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC and therefore, the High Court was not required to interfere with the petition. It was noted that the Apex Court had expressed concerns with regard to the filing of such applications directly before the High Court which increases the burden of the courts.
"It is noticed by this Court that various applications seeking registration of FIR are being filed before this Court directly without approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Such applications, which are directly filed are in direct conflict with the observations of the Apex Court."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Paramjit @ Kali Himmatsingh Chima
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Emphasising that procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act needs to be followed in a just and proper manner, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the Respondent accused of offences under Sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
The facts of the case were that brown sugar packaged in a plastic bag was retrieved from the Respondent, herein. After the filing of complaint and chargesheet, the witnesses were examined however certain panchas and witnesses turned hostile and supported the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, the trial court after perusing the evidence on record acquitted the accused.
Seized Property May Be Returned If Vulnerable To Decay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 115
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted the petition seeking the quashment of order seizing the vehicles of the Petitioner under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and under Sections 4(1)A, 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. An FIR was also registered against the Petitioner for offences under Sections 379, 114 and 120B of IPC.
It was contested that the vehicles were the only means of livelihood for the Petitioner and if they were kept in further seizure, their condition will deteriorate since the trial will take time to conclude. Per contra, the Appellants submitted that the Petitioner was involved in illegal mining and therefore, the petition ought to have been rejected.
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.
Case Title: Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained in the context of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under Rule 12(ii) of the Rules of 2017, the competent authority will have to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee.
The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the quashment of the impugned order which seized the vehicle of the Petitioner.
Case Title: Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court.
Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak observed,
"Section 17B of the Act clearly provides that when the Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period."
Case Title: Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
The Gujarat High Court while making note of the Apex Court's decision in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT has affirmed that within a period of six months from the date of production of vehicle before the Court, the seized vehicle should be disposed of appropriately and not be kept at police stations for a long time. Further, if the vehicle is not claimed by the Accused, then the insurance company or third person can auction it under the direction of the Court.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J Vora made these observations while hearing a petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art 226 and the supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227 along with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC for the release of the Muddamal Vehicle.
Case Title: Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133
The Gujarat High Court has directed its administrative department to grant appointment to the Petitioner, a physically challenged candidate, who had applied for the post of Peon (Class IV) under the Physically Handicapped category.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav considered that two vacancies had arisen before the expiry of the waitlist in which Petitioner's name figured at serial number 67, however, the appointment could not be made since the Recruitment Cell was not informed about the same in due time.
Case Title: Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employer under Section 8(B) and 8(G) of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, citing non availability of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav stated that in the absence of a Presiding Officer at the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the employer against recovery order could not be heard.
Case Title: LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition of a land-owner, seeking directions to re-compute the award passed by the competent authority in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway.
The Petitioners sought that the compensation be revised by applying the market value of the land with Multiplier Factor-2 since the land was a 'rural area'. All other statutory benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 including solatium under Section 30(1) and interest under Section 30(3) of the Act.
Case Title: Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
In huge relief to a 29-year old woman bearing the responsibility of her ailing mother while simultaneously trying to build her career, the Gujarat High Court has removed the ban imposed on her by the State Subordinate Services Selection Board, precluding her from appearing in any competitive exam for three years. The coercive measure was taken against the woman after she was found carrying a mobile phone in one of the exams conducted by the Board.
"…was this single act of carrying a mobile phone so reprehensible that she needs to be debarred for a period of three years is the question", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav wondered.
The Court was dealing with an Article 226 petition moved by the woman, stating that she did not resort to any unfair means and the carried the mobile inside the exam hall very inadvertently.
Case Title: Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 137
The High Court has refused to interfere in an application praying for the quashing of the criminal complaints for offences under Sections 406, 420, 114 and 120B of IPC wherein the Complainant had alleged that the Accused had not made payments for purchasing grey cloth worth "lacs of rupees".
It was alleged that the Accused had promised the Complainant that they would be making payment of goods within one month of the cloth being sold and on the basis of such promise, the large value of the cloth was sold. The Accused had sold cloth to other persons, misappropriated the amount, cheated the Complainant and committed a breach of trust, it was alleged. Accordingly, an FIR was filed with the Katadargam Police Station.
Case Title: Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt Ltd versus Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
The High Court has ruled that once an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking interim measures has been disposed of, a subsequent similar application seeking similar reliefs, which were already dealt with in the earlier proceedings, is not maintainable.
The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Samir J. Dave, held that principal relief cannot be granted at the interim stage, and granting interim directions which are in the nature of main relief is not permissible in law.
Case Title: Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
The Gujarat High Court recently asked a man to reimburse 50% expenses incurred by the Police department in tracing a girl he had lured to elope, despite being married himself.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt observed,
"We need to particularly record that here is a case where the respondent no.4 knowing fully well his own marital status, has lured the girl and his repeated actions of such nature has not only made it extremely difficult for the parties but, because of that, the Police had to work for long many hours and after about 7 months, the corpus could be traced."
Raees Promotion Stampede | Gujarat High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Shah Rukh Khan
Case title - Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed v. State Of Gujarat 1 other
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
The High Court quashed a case against actor Actor Shah Rukh Khan registered against him in connection with a stampede that happened at Vadodara Railway Station during his film, Raees' promotions in the year 2017.
The Bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel observed that the act on part of Khan could not be termed to be so grossly negligent or reckless, neither could be an act on part of the petitioner be treated as the proximate and efficient cause of the unruly incidents at the Railway Station
Case Title: Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
The High Court quashed an FIR and the order of conviction passed in a matrimonial dispute, observing that the offences involved were of non-serious and private nature.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora quashed the FIR registered under Sections 498(a), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and set aside the order of conviction passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
"In light of the settled principle of law, it appears that the criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction," it observed.
Interest On Delayed Payment Of Gratuity Mandatory, Not Discretionary: Gujarat High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
The High Court has reiterated that there is a clear mandate on the employer under the provisions of Section 7 to the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
In light of the above, the Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav directed the Sardar Patel University to pay Rs. 10 lakhs towards gratuity of the Petitioner, a retired reader, along with interest at 9% for wrongfully withholding the gratuity since his retirement in 2013.
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi Versus Hiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi & 2 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
The High Court has held that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in 'custodia legis'.
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
Case Title: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
The High Court granted custody of a 5 years old child, whose parents had passed away during Covid-19 pandemic, to his maternal aunt, over the claim made by his paternal grandparents.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt observed,
"The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statues govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child."
Case Title: Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
The High Court bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Saraen, while invalidating the reassessment initiated by the DRI, held that the officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment.
The petitioner/assessee is a private limited company and is in the business of trading and manufacturing goods like inkjet printers, laser printers, and parts as well as accessories for printers. The petitioner has been importing goods like Continuous Inkjet Printers (CIJ Printers), Laser Marking Machines, parts and accessories for CIJ Printers, and other such goods from foreign countries. They are being imported from China during the period from 2014 to 2021.
Case Title: Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vs Commissioner Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
Drawing a distinction between the term 'public order' and 'law and order'', the High Court has held that mere registration of FIR/s against an accused person does not mean he is a threat to the society or disturbs all social apparatus.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed,
"Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order...no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985."
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ARJANBHAI TITABHAI BARAIYA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Affirming the view that regularly selected employees cannot be continued for long on contractual, adhoc or temporary basis and that they ought to be regularised, the High Court came to the rescue of an Assistant Engineer who was appointed in the aftermath of 2001 Gujarat Earthquake.
A Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak upheld the order of a single judge directing the Revenue Department and Urban Development & Urban Housing Department of the State Government to "positively consider" the request for regularisation.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore held that the interest awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) under section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The writ applicant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is an insurance company. One Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed in the City Civil Court of Ahmedabad. The claim petition was allowed by the MACT.
Case Title: Shiv Garment Through Sole Prop. Rameshchandra Gigaji Maurya v. Suryaben Kantilal Mehta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
Averring that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly, only with a view to keep the Tribunals/ subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority, the Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition praying for a direction upon the Respondent to carry out necessary repairs in the suit property.
The petitioner had approached the High Court against the order passed by a City Civil Court, rejecting such prayer.
Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed,
"High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."
Case Title: Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
"It is trite law that a party should not suffer due to the in action on the part of the advocate and that the matter should be decided on merits rather than on technical ground", the Gujarat High Court has affirmed while hearing a petition under Art 227 to open the right to file written statement which was closed on 1st May 2012.
The Petitioner herein submitted that the Respondent party had filed a civil suit in 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction. Pursuant to the summons, the Petitioners filed their appearance through their advocate. However, subsequently, there were no instructions from the advocate representing the Petitioners for filing the written statement owing to which the Petitioner's right to file the written statement was closed on 1st May 2012. The Respondent, thereafter, filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and the Petitioners then learnt that their written statement had not been filed leading to a delay of 3,330 days.
Case Title: Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai Kuniya Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
The High Court CAME to the aid of some Forest Guards, who were denied the benefit of past service on the basis of an undertaking given by them that they have no objection of losing seniority for enabling their transfer.
The Petitioners had challenged a resolution that provided for a policy of considering the period of five years of the incumbents who were appointed on a fixed pay for the purposes of seniority, promotion, higher pay scale and terminal benefits from their initial date of engagement and not from the date of their regularization
Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
The High Court bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore held that, as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, a claim of refund may be made directly by the recipient if he has borne the burden of tax.
The writ applicant is a practising advocate in the High Court. The writ applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent, Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., for the purchase of a plot. The agreement encompassed the construction of a bungalow on the plot of land by the respondent for the writ applicant.
Case Title: Vijay Arvind Jariwala v. Umang Jatin Gandhi, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16131 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
The High Court held that a third party cannot be impleaded as a party to an application for interim reliefs under Section 9 of the A&C Actunless it is a party who is claiming under a party to the arbitration agreement.
The Division Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Samir J.Dave has held that the remedy under the Arbitration Act is between the parties to the arbitration agreement, therefore, the third party has no concern with the proceedings of Section 9 nor the said provision recognizes the inclusion of the third party, who may be independently claiming the rights against the parties to the arbitration and vice versa.
Updates From High Court/Gujarat Courts
The Gujarat High Court is set to examine whether the action of Schools sending reminders to parents for non-payment of fees amounts to an offence under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The provision provides punishment for cruelty to child, which may lead to physical or "mental suffering".
Justice Bhargav Karia has issued notice on a Special Civil Application filed by the Federation of Self-Financed Schools against an order issued by the Collector and District Magistrate of Surat, stating that harassment of school students for non payment of fees is a gross violation of Section 75 of the JJ Act.
In a writ petition filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, a man claiming to be a descendant of freedom fighter Namdev Nathu Mahajan has sought permission to commit Iccha Mrytyu i.e., active euthanasia.
The Petitioner, 56 years of age, says he was working as a driver in the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation when he received information and documents regarding some corruption which was going on in the department. This corruption was allegedly being carried on with the support of high level officers of the department.
A Court in the Mehsana District of Gujarat sentenced Gujarat Independent MLA Jignesh Mevani and 9 others to 3 months of imprisonment while holding them guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 143 IPC.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate J.A. Parmar noted that all 10 were members of Mevani's Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch and when they were asked to not go ahead with the processions, they disobeyed the orders of the executive magistrate, and therefore, the said assembly became an unlawful assembly.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in terms of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Hearing the matter on Thursday the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri issued the notice to the Centre and directed it to file a reply by June 10, 2022.
Case Title: bajaj finance ltd. Through authorised officer, aniket pareshbhai desai versus ld. District collector, navsari & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Explaining that under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor has the first claim over the sale proceeds of secured assets and that the District Magistrate has to provide assistance under Section 14 to the secured creditor to take possession of the asset, the Gujarat High Court has quashed a communication which prohibited the Petitioner-bank from proceedings against the borrower-company.
Case Title: Vijay Arvind Jariwala Versus Umang Jatin Gandhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
"In the proceedings of section 11, a person who is not a party to the agreement, has no association in eye of law. On the same footing, a third party cannot be a party in the proceedings under section 9 of the Act for interim measures wherein by very nature of the proceedings, third party cannot be said to have a legal participatory right", the Gujarat High Court has recently observed.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Samir Davehas been hearing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was filed by one partner of a partnership firm (Blue Feathers Infracon) against the other wherein the Petitioner filed the interim application to implead a retired partner of the firm and his wife as respondent parties.
Case Title: Godrej Agrovet Limited & 1 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
The Gujarat High Court has held that the sample analysis report received from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is a 'conclusive proof' of facts involved.
Section 24(4) makes provision for a sampel to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, which shall file its report within 30 days, in writing, signed by or under the authority of the Director of the Laboratory and the report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
Case title - Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
The High Court directed a woman who deserted her husband under the influence of her family on the ground that he belongs to a different sub casere, to pay Rs. 10,000/- to her husband.
"We find it extremely unfortunate that the educated couple needs to end the relationship in such a fashion just because there is a strong resistance on the part of the parents and taken in exert this kind of influence," the Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt remarked.
Case Title: Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 158
The High Court has quashed the detention order as there was a bonafide mistake in the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-way bill.
The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (as then was) and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents, including the E-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved by a truck whose registration number was also correct. The only mistake in this case was the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-Way Bill.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Versus Reliance Industries
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 159
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (as then was) and Justice Nisha M. Thankore has held that methanol is not excisable as it is a result of a chemical reaction and not as a result of any by-product.
The respondent-assessee, Reliance Industries, is in the business of manufacturing excisable goods like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel, LPG etc. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has been availing credit of duty paid on the input and capital goods and input services in terms of the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claim was made in respect of the CENVAT Credit Reversed or Paid under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period between April, 2015 and March, 2016 on the removal of the LPG under the Domestic Subsidy Scheme
Police Atrocities| Gujarat High Court Urges State To Install CCTV Cameras, Follow DK Basu Guidelines
Case Title: Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
The High Court recently recommended that the State government take initiatives to implement the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the DK Basu v. State of West Bengal and to install CCTV cameras with night vision and maintain their records for 6 months to deal with police atrocities in the region.
A Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt was hearing a habeas corpus petition involving an inter-religious couple when it came down heavily on the Gujarat police and directed the concerned authorities to intimate all police stations about the guidelines issued in the Paramvir Singh Saini case.
Case Title: Harshad D Santoki S/O Devjibhai Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
In a major relief to an Assistant Professor at the Industrial Engineering Department of LE College, Morbi, the Gujarat High Court has directed the respondent authorities to grant him an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 8,000 from 2010 onwards and consequential benefits of INR 9,000 from 2013.
Justice Vaishnav noted that except for certain adverse remarks from 2009-10, there were no adverse remarks against the Petitioner in the 19 years of service that he had rendered. The issue of unauthorised pay was an aspect of penalty even as the other remarks regarding his ability to decisions or lack of initiative were not so grave so as to deprive him of the AGP. The High Court remarked:
"For these two purported adverse instances the financial loss that has occurred to the petitioner is denial of AGPs consequentially based on the communication of 2019."
Case Title: Shree Vikas Co.Op. Bank ltd, (liq.) Through Sunil Laxmanrao Powle v. State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shastri recently dismissed an application seeking cancellation of bail while noting that there was no violation of any bail conditions or misuse of liberty could be made out against the accused persons.
There were 20 FIRs registered against the Accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 114, 34 and 120(B) of the IPC. The main accused person in these FIRs being the Vice-Chairman of the Shree Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited ('Applicant Bank') was accused of having sanctioned different loans for his relatives without proper security even as the relatives failed to repay the loan with interest in due time.
Case Title: Nathiben Lalitbhai Vegada Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 163
"It is trite law that initiation of contempt proceedings is a serious step; same cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Unless there is a definite material and clear case made out, this Court would refuse to exercise contempt jurisdiction", the Gujarat High Court has held while dismissing a false application filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the applicant through her sister (minor).
The Applicant herein had approached the Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the State authorities for the wilful and deliberate disobedience of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in DK Basu vs State of West Bengal for the alleged physical abuse endured by her sister and herself.
It was averred that the an Activa vehicle belonging to the employee of the Applicant's sister was detained by the traffic police. On the subsequent payment of the fine, the sister reached the police station to take possession of the vehicle along with the Applicant wherein the authorities delivered blows on them resulting in serious injuries. After being admitted to the hospital, the Applicant claimed that an FIR was lodged against them along with two other Accused persons for offences under Section 447, 379 and 114 of the IPC. The Applicant insisted that no theft or trespass was committed by her.
Case Title: Panchal Zalakben Hardikbhai D/O Sanjaybhai Bhagubhai Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Considering the well settled principle of paramount welfare of child, the Gujarat High Court recently exercised its extraordinary powers under Section 226 of the Constitution and granted custody of the corpus, a 4 old year boy, to his mother (Petitioner herein).
The child was said to be taken away from the mother by the child's father, following a matrimonial dispute. After the judgment was pronounced in Petitioner's favour, the Bench comprising Justices Sonia Gokani and Mauna M Bhatt noted the father's attempt to create an unruly atmosphere in the Court. Thus, it suspended his visitation rights for a period of six months.
"We allow this petition giving the custody of child to the mother. Let the same be handed-over peacefully to the mother...the father would have visitation right...After the judgement was pronounced, respondent-father of the child tried to create unruly atmosphere in the Court premise leading to unmanageable situation for Campus Administration. His intimidating behaviour make us suspend the visitation rights for six months from today," the order stated.
Case Title: Leepee Enterprise versus Mehul Industries
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 165
The High Court has ruled that the issue of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator ought to be raised at the first available opportunity, i.e., when the notice under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is served for appointment of Arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice A.G. Uraizee rejected the contention that the issue of jurisdiction being a legal issue can be raised at any stage. The Court held that since the party had not raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator by responding to the notice issued under Section 11 of the A&C Act nor had it participated in the arbitral proceedings to raise the said issue, the arbitral award could not be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Vijaybhai Punabhai Chavda Versus State Of Gujarat & 13 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
Observing that no untoward incident has taken place since the persons accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were released on bail, the Gujarat High Court has refused to entertain an application preferred by the complainant for cancellation of bail.
Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed,
"Trial is already set on motion and the case has already been fixed on 20.6.2022, and further, there is no untoward incident has taken place after June 2017 nor any case is made out of breach of any of the conditions of grant of bail, hence this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion to cancel the bail which has been granted."
Case Title: Chief Project Manager Versus Firoz Saheb Dargah Through Trustee Shaikh Onali Ismailji Visawaarvala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
The High Court held that merely because a Dargah is situated in a railway land and not disturbed or removed because of its devotees and followers, does not mean that the surrounding land of the Dargah becomes the Dargah's property.
Observing thus, the Bench comprising Justice Umesh Trivedi set aside an order of the State Waqf Tribunal which granted injunction in favour of the Trustee of the concerned Dargah, halting the construction of railway line near the Dargah.
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.
Case Title: Jaydev Mulubhai Jaju vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 177
The High Court has permitted a person claiming to be from the Scheduled Tribe community, to be provisionally appointed to the post of Sales Tax Inspector Class III, pending scrutiny of the caste certificate produced by him.
Justice Biren Vaishnav directed that such an appointment will be subjected to the result of the Scrutiny Committee. If the certificate produced by the Petitioner is proved to be disingenuous, the Petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of being in provisional service. Per contra, if the certificate of the Petitioner is found to be genuine, it will be open for the Petitioner to claim his actual appointment along with continuity of service and other benefits.
Case Title: Hardasbhai Raymalbhai Gohil vs Sanjaybhai Arvindbhai Jabuani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 178
The High Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the claim petition filed by a motor accident victim, even though there was a delay of about 1 month in reporting the matter to the Police.
The direction was passed in a First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 challenging dismissal of the claim petition. Attention was drawn to the fact that the victim herein was earning INR 1,50,000 from his agricultural work and therefore the claimants were entitled to get compensation worth INR 11,00,000.
Case Title: Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 179
While opining that it is a matter of shame for a lawyer to be involved in serious offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation, the Gujarat High Court has refused bail to the Applicant who had allegedly eloped for 3 years with a huge amount of money during the execution of a sale deed.
The Bench comprising Justice Niral R Mehta observed,
"applicant being a lawyer by profession, is oftenly involved in the offence serious in nature which itself is a matter of shame. The profession of a lawyer is a noble profession, as it has direct nexus with pious stream of justice which at any cost shall not be allowed to be polluted. It is highly unexpected from a lawyer to have indulged in such an offence not once, but several times in past. Though some offences are settled, but the fact remains that the offences took place at the instance of the applicant. Thus, the conduct of the applicant seems to be not befitting to the standard of the profession."
Case Title: Madrasa-E-Anware Rabbani Waqf Committee V/S Surat Municipal Corporation
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 180
The High Court refused to interfere with an order passed by the Executive Engineer of the Surat Municipal Corporation, directing removal of an alleged "Madrassa" said to be constructed on a government land, on the ground that the construction was without prior permission of the competent authority.
"In the opinion of the Court, in absence of any evidence on record regarding actual running of educational institution and there is nothing on record to indicate any permission to running educational institution or building permission to put up construction of educational institution and the factual assertion not being controverted that the premises were being used for commercial purpose, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing process, which according to the Court is in accordance with the provisions of GDCR," Justice AY Kogje said.
Case Title: Rajendrakumar Manilal Jaiswal V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 181
While quashing the FIR registered against the Applicant for offences under Sections-66(1)b, 65AE, 116(2), 81, 98 and 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the High Court has held that it is not open for the Investigating Officer to rely upon other material which was not a part of the chargesheet to allege that the Applicant was involved in the crime in in question.
The Applicant had challenged the FIR since initially he was not named in the FIR but after the investigation his name was included in the charge sheet basis the statements of the co-accused. It was also mentioned in the chargesheet that the Applicant was the principal purchaser of prohibited goods despite there being no material to support the allegations. There was also no evidence that the Applicant had piloted the truck with prohibited goods.
Case Title: National Insurance Co Ltd V/S Rajeen Rafiqahmed Vohra & 4 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 182
Stating that the Insurance Company had unnecessarily filed an appeal for challenging a small compensation amount in a motor vehicles accident claim, Justice Sandeep Bhatt has affirmed the award of INR 65, 200 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company.
The brief facts of the case were that the Claimant (Respondent No. 1) was riding in a rash and negligent manner on a motorcycle with the Opponent No. 2 as a pillion rider when the Opponent No. 4 driving a tempo hit the motorcycle because of excessive speed. This caused serious injuries and fracture to the Claimant. The claim petition was filed to gain compensation worth INR 3 lakhs. However, noting the involvement and liabilities of both parties and the disability claims, the Tribunal declared a compensation of INR 65,200 with 7.5% interest for the Claimant.
Case Title: Amitkumar Babubhai Katara V/S The State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 183
Opining that there is sufficient evidence to form a prima facie view that the Congress Leader Amit Katara hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder BJP councillor Hiren Patel amid political rivalry, the Gujarat High Court has rejected his bail plea for alleged offences under Sections 302, 303 read with Sections 120(b) and 201 of IPC.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora observed,
"The Court should not go into merits of the case by appreciation of the evidence. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the applicant was dominating over the municipality affairs as his wife was President and the whole body was representing one party. In this context, when deceased had managed to win over the councilors of the ruling party, naturally, the issue of ruling of municipality would arise. At this stage, considering the material collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that there is no evidence connecting the applicant herein in the alleged offence. It is alleged that, the applicant conspired to kill the deceased for which, he agreed to finance also."
Case Title: Sumesh Engineers Private Limited V/S Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 184
The Gujarat High Court has recently observed that normally, Courts would be loath to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or malafides or bias or irrationality is made out.
A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that needless interference in commercial matters can cause havoc and hence, the Courts must realize their limitations in such matters.
"But, at the same time, it is also the proposition of law that Constitutional Court being the guardian of the fundamental rights, is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, malafides and bias and as such, a duty is cast upon the Court in such circumstances that whenever any specific arbitrariness or irrationality is visible in public interest, Court can exercise powers of judicial review," it added.
Case Title: yamuna cables accessories pvt. Ltd. V/s desai enterprise
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 185
The High Court permitted a party in appeal under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to make a pre-deposit to Court in terms of Section 19 of the Act, i.e., 75% of the amount awarded, in installments.
The Petitioner herein was aggrieved by an order of Additional District Judge, whereby its application for extension of time to deposit the 75% of the award amount was rejected.
Gujarat HC Affirms Regularisation Of Sweeper Working Around 8 Hours A Day For Over 30 Years
Case Title : State Of Gujarat V Saurashtra Majur Mahajan Sangh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 186
Justice Biren Vaishnav affirmed the order of the Industrial Tribunal which directed the Petitioner-State authorities to regularise the position of a sweeper who had been working for over four hours everyday for the past thirty years. The Tribunal had directed that the State also remit all the arrears from the date of reinstatement given the length of the worker's tenure.
Case Title: Subhashchandra Sanatan Mallik Through Babita Subhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
The Gujarat High Court while allowing the petition against the order of detention of the Petitioner has held that offences under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 30 and 35 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioner Act by itself cannot bring the detenu within the fold of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
Case Title: Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that the Assistant Director of Information (Journalism) Class II Recruitment Rules, 2015 nowhere stipulate that Journalism experience necessarily has to be from a government organization for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Information (Journalism) Class II.
"Nowhere does Recruitment Rule stipulate that it has to be in only a government or local body or a government undertaking board or the Corporation or a Company. This would amount to restrictive reading of the Rule and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 does not possess the requisite experience," Justice Biren Vaishnav observed.
Case Title: Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Ensuring that no discrimination is borne by Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the High Court held that they shall be entitled to regular pay scale from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits which were paid to similarly situated employees way back in the year 2011 and 2016.
Justice Biren Vaishnav referred to previous orders of the High Court by wherein Multi-Purpose Health Workers were regularised while observing:
"Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings."
Case Title: Symphony Limited Versus Raj Cooling System Private Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
The High Court passed a consent decree in terms of a settlement arrived between renowned Symphony coolers and Raj Cooling System Pvt Ltd in connection with a suit for permanent injunction instituted under the Designs Act, 2000.
The suit was filed by Symphony Ltd. alleging infringement of the Designs Act by the Respondent company, alleging that the latter has been selling their product of air cooler having model name ALLWYN AC201 and ALLWYN AC203, whose is similar to Symphony's design vide registration no. 288184.
Case Title: Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/S Agriculture Produce Market Committee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
The High Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to contempt proceedings. In this light, it refused to entertain a contempt petition filed with a delay of over 1 year.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri noted that as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, proceedings for contempt cannot be initiated by a Court, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 16-Yr-Old Accused Of Committing Unnatural Sex With 13-Yr-Old
Case Title: Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai Vaghela Through Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a 16 years old boy, accused of forcibly committing unnatural sex (sodomy) with a minor boy, aged about 13 years.
Keeping in view Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a Bench of Justice Samir Dave granted bail to the accused while restraining him from entering the society where the alleged victim resides. In doing so, the Bench allowed the criminal revision application filed under Section 102 of the JJ Act to quash the order passed by the Sessions Court and the JJ Board, refusing bail.
Case Title: Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
While emphasizing on the paramount welfare of children in custody matters and observing that young children need love and warmth of both the parents, the Gujarat High Court recently directed the District Legal Service Authority to attempt conciliation between an estranged couple.
"We would also request the Chairperson, Rajkot District Legal Service Authority to also attempt to bring about the permanent solution between the parties, as according to us, such solution will be quite beneficial. After once the Chairperson undertakes this exercise and if he finds the need for continuity of the process, he will be at liberty to relegate the parties to professional counselors or anyone he deems appropriate," a bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt ordered.
Case Title: Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
The High Court reiterated that when a government servant is accused of a criminal offence, there has to be a reasonable connection between the act concerned and the performance of his official duty for him to claim that there is need of sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC.
Holding thus, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel dismissed the applications filed by members of the Police Force, challenging an order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint against them and issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 114 of IPC.
Case title - Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Citing the limited scope of judicial review with Courts to interfere with stipulations in recruitment advertisements which is the exclusive domain of the executive authority, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a Civil Judge from Rajasthan seeking the appointment to the post of Civil Judge in Gujarat.
Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for alleged assault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, it is too early to opine on his innocence.
"If the allegations found to be true, it is a very serious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocate is expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and the Investigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory duties under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," Justice Samir Dave said.
Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material.
The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.
Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not own or exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found the termination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused to interfere with his retrenchment.
Significantly, the Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Bench refused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal.
Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a Road Contractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant with principles of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor in relation to three work orders.
However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made it clear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing the final order in the matter.
"Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 has been set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend that respondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to the Corporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to rely upon their own earlier order, it is for them to justify it while passing the final order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity to interfere at this juncture."
Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order
Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.
The writ applicant/assessee is registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued by the State Tax Officer on Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
The High Court granted bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercial quantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accused of offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar for grant of bail under the provision.
Case Title : Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
The High Court held that a reserved category meritorious candidate should be allowed to merge in the class of unreserved category because of his own merits, as depriving such candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category results into communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.
In this case, an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III was issued by the Recruitment Board inviting online applications for a total of 1,382 posts to be filled in. The petitioners are candidates who took the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for the main examination.
Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 26 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
The High Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.
The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made to the validity of terms of the clause
The Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process provided under the agreement after agreeing on the same with open eyes unless a challenge is made to the validity of such a clause.
Case Title : Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat| C/SCA/7676/2017| 10 June 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Justice Bhargav D. Karia of the High Court has held that in case of voluntary retirement from service, if the appointing authority does not permit or refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
In this case, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Deputy Engineer at Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in 1992. He served a notice for voluntary retirement in 2013 upon the University on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. In the said letter the petitioner stated that the petitioner would retire voluntarily w.e.f. 06.01.2014. The Respondent-University did not issue any intimation with regard to any order rejecting or accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 06.01.2014 on expiry of the three months' notice period.
Case Title: Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
Opining that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, particularly which require technical know-how is limited, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel where the Petitioner's challenge to the show cause notices issued by Indian Oil Corporation were dismissed.
Case Title: krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
The High Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) was legally not entitled to demand betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc. at the time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme.
Case Title: Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
The High Court came to the rescue of a retired Branch Manager, accused by the employer-bank of causing it monetary loss by haphazardly sanctioning loans, and ordered the latter to clear the former's retiral dues.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the order forfeiting the Respondent-employee's gratuity was an "afterthought" as the same was issued only after the penalty of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement and after the respondent approached the bank seeking payment of gratuity.
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
The former ASG at Gujarat High Court, IH Syed was granted anticipatory bail by a bench consisting of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel of the Gujarat High Court. The court found that the accused was not obliged to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail and even though the Court's power of granting anticipatory bail was not ordinary, its use was not confined to exceptional cases alone.
Case Title: Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
The Gujarat High Court has held that an accused person can be competent witness, provided there is a written permission or there is a written request made to the concerned court at the instance of accused under Section 315 CrPC.
It thus dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court which rejected the Petitioner's application for being treated as a witness, in the absence of a written request.
Case Title : Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Rajendra M. Sareen has held that custody of a minor with his maternal grandparents could not be considered illegal custody or illegal confinement, given that the husband/ the father of the minor had remarried during subsistence of his marriage with his first wife, who was the mother of the said minor.
This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the police authority to produce the corpus (Samir, a minor aged 9 years) and handover his custody to the petitioner (the father). The respondent in this case are maternal grandparents of the corpus.
Case Title: Hamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/S Haiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
Taking into account the income of the deceased victim of motor accident, the spousal consortium and the parental consortium, the Gujarat High Court has increased the motor accident compensation for the Appellants (family of the deceased) by a significant amount, i.e., by Rs. 4,84,000.
Whereas the Trial Court had ordered payment of Rs. 15,58,900/-, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Sandeep Bhatt enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,42,856/-. It observed, "all the three appellant no.1 would be entitled to spousal consortium, and appellants no.2 and 3 would be entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/-)."
Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order under GST on the grounds that the notice as well as the order were passed on the same date, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Observing that the concerned agricultural land was already converted under Gujarat Land Revenue Code for 'Non-Agricultural' purpose of cottage industries, the Gujarat High Court has held that it makes no difference if there is a change in the nature of industries and has thus, allowed a petition seeking the revision of plan from 'Marble Cottage Industries' to 'Commercial Purpose'.
Case Title: crazy concepts and mazes pvt. Ltd. & 1 other(s) v/s n. Venkta yayadri rao & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
The Gujarat High Court has held that as per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.
Thus, in a suit pertaining to infringement of artwork, Justice AP Thaker observed that it cannot be said that the copyright of the Plaintiff had come to an end on a particular date and that the actions of the Respondent reproducing the work under a different trade name cannot be injuncted. It observed,
"Copyright would not come to an end on a particular date, it will subsist till the death of the author and even 60 years thereafter. Therefore, admittedly the observations of the trial Court that copyright has expired in 2011 is legally not tenable."
Case Title: Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding that whether the cheque was issued by the petitioner or his brother who had the same initials was a question to be considered at the stage of trial and prima facie the intention of the petitioner was to avoid paying back the huge sum to the complainant.
Justice Nirzar Desai dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner, a proprietor of AK Construction claimed that his brother's firm, AK Road Constructor was a separate entity and that the complaint against a cheque issued by AK Road Contractor did not have any connection with him.
Case Title: Madhukantaben D/O Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
Referring to the Registration Act, 1908, the Gujarat High Court has opined that if any right concerning a property valued above Rs. 100 has been relinquished or extinguished, it requires compulsory registration before the registering authority under the Act.
In the absence of such registration, such relinquishment cannot affect any immovable property comprised therein and the said document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, it added.
Case Title : K News Channel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
Citing non-compliance with Section 8 of the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 2004 and violation of principles of natural justice, the Gujarat High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad cancelling the licence of 'K News Channel'.
Operation Of Roads Within Defence Area Absolute Domain Of Defence Authorities: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union Of India Thru The Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Observing that it is the 'absolute domain' of the Ministry of Defence to decide the opening or closing of the road which falls in the defence area, the Gujarat High Court has refused to grant relief to the Petitioners complaining that blocking of a road by the defence authorities was causing them hardship in approaching their society / homes.
"...It is for the army authorities to determine which area is sensitive or more prone to such hazard or which is not or through which a passage can be permitted or not and it is their sole discretion and in absence of any right of any party, a mandate cannot be issued."
Case Title: Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that issues involving enforcement of the conditions of a Franchise Agreement cannot be the subject matter of an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Samir J. Dave, held that conditions of a contract can be enforced only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged and crystallised by the Arbitrator. The Court ruled that proceedings under Section 9 of the A&C Act are only for interim measures and that they cannot be converted into proceedings where a party can indirectly seek the final relief.
Case Title: Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
The High Court of Gujarat has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal whereby it has rejected the claim of a party on the ground that its pleadings were without verification and affidavit to that effect.
The Single Bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that once the arbitrator rejects the claims of a party that essentially means a final disclosure of its claims and the order of the arbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Can't Refuse Arms License Unless Applicant Found Unworthy U/S 14 Arms Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ petition challenging the order of District Magistrate rejecting the Petitioner's application for obtaining an arms license, stating that he was not found ineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Case Title: Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that when the service of an employee is dismissed in culmination of disciplinary inquiry on account of misconduct, the plea moved by him for regularization of the period of suspension cannot be considered in isolation.
It added that since the Petitioner had challenged the dismissal before the High Court, the two proceedings will go hand in hand.
"The Court is not inclined to entertain this petition as the claim of the petitioner with regards to the regularization of the period of suspension as prayed for now before this Court, cannot be examined in isolation, pending the challenge to the order of dismissal which the petitioner has already made in a separate petition," Justice AY Kogje said.
Case Title: Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained it is a human tendency to wait for the returning of a missing family member for many years and therefore, in a suit for declaration for the death of such person, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.
The Appellant-Original Plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that his son was missing since 31.01.1984 and could not be found till the filing of the suit. Therefore, he sought that the Nagarpalika, Surat declare his son dead and make an entry to this effect. No written statement was filed by the Defendant-State. However, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and a first appeal against the same was also unsuccessful on ground of limitation.
Case Title : Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya Versus The Registrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ seeking direction upon the Registrar of Birth and Death/Chief Officer, to delete the name of a minor's biological father's name from his birth certificate and replace it with his adoptive father's name.
For this, Justice A.S. Supehia opined that neither is the consent of the biological father required to be obtained by the registrar nor is he required to be arraigned as a party to the writ petition, as the adoption deed was not in question.
Case Title: Aasifbhai Hajiabdul Bhaya V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Case No.: R/CR.MA/14875/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Observing the difference between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and the cancellation of bail, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the bail order of an Accused person on the ground that 'misused the liberty and grossly violated the conditions of the bail.'
The Applicant (Original Complainant) indicated that goods worth INR 42,35,000 were stolen from his house and as a result a complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sec 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the IPC. However, it was submitted that Respondent No. 2 (Accused person) committed the crime of a similar nature during the pendency of the instant proceedings and therefore, bail should not be allowed to continue. There were also additional averments that the Accused person was served notice in 2017 for the instant application and yet he chose not to cooperate with it. The APP submitted that the Accused person had committed several offences of similar nature, including during the pendency of the petition. Two more offences were committed in 2021 and therefore, bail ought to be cancelled.
Case Title : Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Biren Vaishnav held that delay in appointment, when entirely attributable to the employer and caused due to no fault of the candidate could not be allowed to result in a delayed promotion for the said candidate.
Briefly, the facts of this case are that the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male). The petitioner applied for the same online. He was placed at Serial No. 677, as his written test marks were 55.80 and he got additional 2.79 marks for sports, making his total 58.59.
Case Title: Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
The Gujarat High Court has held that where any information sought under the Right to Information Act is destroyed and it is not the case of malafide destruction of information, penalty under Section 20(2) of RTI Act shall not be attracted.
Section 20 stipulates disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer where information sought is not supplied within the time specified, or is malafidely denied or incorrect information is knowingly given or information is destroyed.
Case Title: Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is for the purpose of execution of the award or dealing with the pre-existing right or benefit arising out of the settlement of a workman against his employer. The same does not make way for a Labour Court to enter into an adjudicatory process, giving a finding on disputed facts between the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje was hearing a challenge to a Labour Court's order directing the Petitioner-organisation to pay full wages to the respondent-workman from 2006-2013.
Case Title: M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
The Gujarat High Court has held that the acid test to determine whether or not a dispute relating to property is a "commercial dispute" under Commercial Court's Act, 2015 is that the property in question is used "exclusively" in trade or commerce.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Samir Dave observed, "Dispute arising out of agreements relating to property used exclusively in trade and commerce would constitute a commercial dispute...a commercial dispute would otherwise not cease to be commercial dispute merely because action involves recovery of immovable property or realisation of money out of immovable property or involve any other relief pertaining to immovable property."
Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
High Court cannot decide disputed questions of facts in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of arbitrator, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed, "All these issues including arbitrability can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself."
The observation was made while deciding the application preferred by the Petitioner for appointment of sole arbitrator in connection with a dispute arising from agreement relating to operation of a restaurant owned by the respondent.
Case Title: Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to a public servant employed in the Police force and his wife, in a case of dowry harassment initiated at the instance of their daughter in law.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel observed that merely because the accused father-in-law is in Police is no ground to deny him anticipatory bail and adequate conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering of evidence. In fact, the bench was of the view that the father-in-law being a public servant, there could not be any apprehension that he would flee from trial.
Case Title: Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a freelance reporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plots reserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the petition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of the plots had been made and there was not even a whisper in the petition as to why the petitioner did not raise his "little finger" from 2003 / 2006, particularly when he claims to be an RTI activist, a public spirited person and espousing the cause of the public.
Case Title : Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
The Gujarat High Court has held that even if a mother seeks to sell off the property of her minor child, despite her being a natural guardian, she can be looked at with suspicion and be denied permission to sell off such property if relevant material details are not provided.
Case Title: Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Emphasising on the principles of proportionality and parity while determining punishment, the High Court has reduced punishment of deduction of pension from 100% to 25% imposed on a sub-inspector accused of aiding an under-trial to escape police custody.
The Petitioner-accused challenged the order of 2015 passed by the Respondent-State wherein the Petitioner's monthly pension was deducted 100%. The Petitioner also challenged the order where the Respondent-State had refused to reconsider the impugned order.
Case Title: Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
The Gujarat High Court has said that where the service of a workman is terminated in violation of the procedure for Retrenchment & Re-Employment provided under Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an order of reinstatement ought to follow.
Holding thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the order of the Labour Court which granted backwages worth Rs. 72,000 to the terminated workmen, and directed their reinstatement in service, with continuity of service. It said,
"Compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be detrimental to the petitioners who have worked for over a period of 20 years."
Case Title: Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
The Gujarat High Court has held that an institution registered under the Wakf Board, indulging in commercial activities such as printing magazines apart from imparting religious education, is an 'industry' for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It added that a 'Maulvi' who is entrusted with the management of such commercial activity, in the present case managing all the printing material, etc., is a 'workman' under the Act and thus, the provisions under the Act relating to termination of service will be attracted.
Case Title: Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a party is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after it had signed the discharge voucher without any protest or demur, since no arbitrable dispute could be said to subsist.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that an application for referring the dispute to arbitration could not be entertained merely on the ground that the party had, within 15 days from the receipt of an amount, contended that the said amount was received by it under duress.
Case Title: Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Niral R. Mehta held that while exercising its powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the court could not impose any condition which amounted to it exercising powers envisaged under some other enactment. The court held that any such condition imposed would be completely beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a FIR lodged for violation of the Environment (Protection) Act against a factory owner for allegedly dumping chemicals in open land by excavating pits.
Remarking that the case is nothing but a glaring example of "horrifying side effects of industrial growth", Justice Niral R. Mehta refused to exercise the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The bench observed,
"In my considered opinion, the present case is a glaring example of horrifying side effects of industrial growth, wherein not only society at large is being affected, but it is prejudicial to the cattle as well. Therefore, in my view, when the industrialization is achieving its peak, then our eyes must not be closed against those errant, who, for the sake of their meager profit, manipulating with the nature and life of human."
Case Title: Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Registrar under the Births and Deaths Registration Act is bound to issue certificate in the name of adoptive father where there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of the Applicant.
The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia in a petition moved by the mother of one 'Nidhi', seeking to include her second husband/ Nidhi's adoptive father's name in Nidhi's birth certificate. The bench observed that the Registrar cannot insist on a decree of the Court with regard to the adoption since as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a "presumption" is drawn in favour of the Petitioner under Section 16 of the Adoptions Act, since there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of her daughter "Nidhi".
Case Title : Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
A single-judge bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court held that in terms of conduction of examination and results for admission to LLB course, the rules of a University would prevail over the Rules of Bar Council of India.
In this case, the High Court upheld Saurashtra University rules that prohibited admission for an LLB course in cases where the graduate had not passed their examination in a single attempt.
Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest
Case title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.
The applicants/petitioners have sought the direction to the respondents/department to grant a refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 with appropriate interest on the refund.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
The High Court upheld the acquittal of a general store owner, who was booked under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after noticing that the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which the samples were collected, were not followed.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the Food Safety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not clean at the place of collecting the sample. He had also admitted that the covers of the bottles were not cleaned at the time. It said,
"This Court is of the view that though the complainant had explained all the formalities for collecting the samples but, so longer as the mandatory provisions are concerned for cleanliness of bottles and also cleanliness of the cover is concerned, same is not proved. On the contrary admitted that the same is not cleaned and therefore...this Court is of the opinion that (trial) Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent, which learned APP has failed to dislodge them."
Case Title: Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
The High Court held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, when a widow dies intestate, her heirs including son and daughter out of wedlock or even from illicit relationships are entitled to the share in her property.
Justice AP Thaker further held that since the deceased widow in the instant case was one of the owners of the suit property, she had every right to give her undivided share to anyone vide her Will, particularly, when the Will had not been challenged by anyone before the High Court.
"It is worthwhile to refer to Hindu Succession Act, wherein under Section 15, a Hindu widow can inherit land from his second husband and even her children born out of first marriage can also inherit land from second husband."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245
Referring Section 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, the High Court explained that a Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed any offence under the Act, if he has purchased the food article in question from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with written warranty.
Keeping in view the provision, the High Court refused to interfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate, acquitting the vendor and owner of one Didar Traders.
Bank Can't Attach Customer's PPF Account For Settlement Of His Debt/ Liability: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
The High Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that the amount of Public Provident Fund account shall not be liable to any attachment in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the account holder.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia was hearing the case of a Petitioner who had invested Hindu Undivided Family's money under Centre's Public Provident Fund Scheme with the Respondent-Bank of Baroda.
Case Title: Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Finding itself in agreement with other High Courts across the country, the High Court held that the increment earned by an employee (government servant) for the past period of service cannot be denied merely because the said employee had retired when the increment became payable.
Justice Biren Vaishnav concurred with the Delhi High Court that when increment was earned for past period, its denial on the ground that on the date when the increment became payable the government servant was not holding the post as he had retired, was not valid.
Case Title : Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248
The High Court has held that the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 does not envisage any provision that would require the custody of a new-born child to be retained by the surrogate mother for a particular period of time, for the purpose of breastfeeding.
A division bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the court must interpret the law as it stands and not on considerations of perceived morality. Thus, a new-born child could be handed over to the intended parents even without a court order, in lieu of the provisions of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 and the surrogacy agreement signed between the parties.
Case No.: Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
The High Court quashed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha which forfeited the allotment of land to a Public Trust for the purpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court also directed the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.
The development ensued after the Court noted that the competent government authority had passed the order for forfeiture, beyond the show cause notice that was issued to the Petitioner.
Case Title: Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250
In a petition involving alleged misuse of cheque, the Gujarat High Court has directed to send the disputed cheque to the Forensics Laboratory for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert to ensure the 'larger object of fair trial.'
The Petitioner, an accused, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had challenged the order of the trial court and Sessions Judge which rejected his plea for forensic examination of the cheque. The Petitioner made the prayer for sending the cheque for examination by the Handwriting Expert to determine the ageing and the writing on the cheque.
Case Title: Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocate enrolled in the Gujarat Bar Council and practising before various courts.
Case Title.: Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reasons for refusal of a firearm license under the Arms Act should have a nexus and should be in context with the provisions of the Act and that the license cannot be revoked on irrelevant considerations.
The Bench of Justice AS Supehia further observed that the authority could not have revoked the Applicant's license merely because he had not received any threats or there was no incident of assault on him.
"The revocation of the license on the two grounds as mentioned hereinabove, is absolutely illegal and de hors the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act," it observed.