Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 211 - 418]
Sparsh Upadhyay
28 Dec 2022 4:38 PM IST
![Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 211 - 418]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/28/750x450_451158-gujarat-high-court-yearly-digest-2022.webp "Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 211 - 418]")
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211 to 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 418NOMINAL INDEXHamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/SHaiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner OfState Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213Cazy Concepts and Mazes pvt. Ltd. &...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211 to 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 418
NOMINAL INDEX
Hamidabanu Anawarbhai Multani & 2 Other(S) V/SHaiderbhai Bhikhabhai Bhetariya & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner OfState Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/S District Collector2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Cazy Concepts and Mazes pvt. Ltd. & 1 other(s) v/sn. Venkta yayadri rao & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 215
Madhukantaben D/O Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel V/S StateOf Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
K News Channel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 217
Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union Of India ThruThe Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 219
Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat Water Supply andSewerage Board 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat & 2Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 223
Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai Asodariya Versus TheRegistrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
Aasifbhai Hajiabdul Bhaya V/S State Of Gujarat & 1Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat StateInformation 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 ManagingDirector Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast PrivateLimited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. RaysonsResidency Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 231
Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 233
Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy ExecutiveEngineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi MahmrudulHasan & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The NewIndia Assurance Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar,Registration Of Birth And Death 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus SaurashtraUniversity 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
Adi Enterprises Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 242
State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 243
Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/SNaushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 245
Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant PunjalalShah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 248
Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal VersusState Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249
Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 250
Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 251
Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S AdditionalDistrict Magistrate 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(Koli Patel) V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253
Chief Officer v/s Decd. Shree Solanki KanubhaiDanabhai through Legal Heirs Manjulaben w/o Kanubhai Solanki 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)254
Rafik Adam Sumra V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 255
Gujarat State Financial Corporation Ltd V/S India SmeAssets Reconstruction Company Limited & 8 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 256
Jayesh Nebhabhai Kambariya V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 257
Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal V/S The State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 258
Nasik Merchants' Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V/s State OfGujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 259
Narughar Songhar Goswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 260
Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation OfIndia V/S Original Claimants & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 261
Garden Silk Mills Limited & 1 Other(S) V/SLiquidator Of Petrofils Cooperative Limited & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)262
Solanki Haribhai Arjanbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 263
Dhanrajsinh Gambhirsinh Thakore V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 264
Narendrasinh Dosabhai Gohil V/S Managing Director& 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 265
State Of Gujarat V/S Hasmukhbhai @ HarshadbhaiDahyabhai Makwana 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 266
Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 267
M/S Harekrushna Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & 1 Other(S)V/S State Bank Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 268
M/s Magirsha Industries versus M/s Gujarat StateFertilizer and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269
Navinchandra Somchand, Died Through His Heirs & 1Other(S) V/S Heirs Of Somchand Bechardas & 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)270
Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/S Ahmedabad MunicipalCorporation & 1 other(s) ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
Rajendrasinh Velubha Jadeja V/S General Manager(Project) ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
R/Special Civil Application No. 12864 of 2021 ) 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 273
State Of Gujarat Versus Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar& 4 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltd v/s nathabhaibhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276
Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 277
Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s Shree Sayan VibhagSahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles A Proprietorship Firm ThorughIts Proprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/S Syndicate Bank Surat Main Branch2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
M/S Sanganer Enviro Project Development V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
Krishna Calibration Services v. Jasmin Bharat Patel2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) V/S DistrictSuperintendent Of Police, Panchamahal At Godhra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
Madyahan Bhojan Yojna Karmachari Sangh V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 283
State Of Gujarat V/S Raib Jusab Sama Musalman 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 284
Sailesh Shantilal Lunavia V/S Carborandum UniversalLimited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 285
State Of Gujarat - For & On Behalf Of R N Joshi,Food Inspec V/S Ilesh Himmatlal Bhuptani & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)286
Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Jadav Versus The State OfGujarat & 1 other 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
State Of Gujarat V/S Laxmanbhai @ Lakhabhai PratapbhaiThakor & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 288
The New India Assurance co. Ltd v/s Thakor KanajiViraji 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289
Rayma Adham Sela Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 290
Vijaybhai Mansibhai Khavada (Khartani) V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 292
M/S. Overseas healthcare pvt. Ltd. V/s state ofGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 293
Universal Hospital A1 Ain Llc V/S M/S Yes Bank Limited2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 294
Anilsinh Laghubha Jadeja V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 295
Sunil Kumar Agarwal v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Boardof India (IBBI) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 296
Gopalbhai Naranbhai @ Narubhai Bhagubhai Ratadiya V/SState Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 297
M/S. Mahee Cotex v/s Central Bank Of India, authorisedofficer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 298
Jamnagar municipal corporation v/s Avdhesh Kishor BhaiSolanki 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 299
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. V/s ManojbhaiDashrathbhai Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 300
Kamleshkumar Mohanji Methana V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 301
Gulamkadar Kasambhai Shaikh V/S The State Of GujaratThru The Principal Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 302
State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s) v. Ravindra S.Shukla & 22 Other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 303
Pritiben Chhaganlal Kanjariaya V/S State Of Gujarat& 4 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 304
Poonam Madha Parmar V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 305
Raja Laxman Chopada V/S Aditaya Birala Nova Limited2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 306
Jerambhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli) ThroughBhagwanjibhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli) V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)307
Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 308
Ambe Public School V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 309
Savitaben Mangalbhai Parmar V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 310
Akil Valibhai Piplodwala V/S Central Government 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 311
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. & 1 other(s) v.Presiding Officer & 2 Other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 312
Shambhavi Kumari V/S Sabarmati University & 3other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 313
M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited v.Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 314
Santram Spinners Limited V/S Babubhai Magandas Patel2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 315
Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 316
Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317
Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/S Pgvcl Through TheDeputy Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318
Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S Managing Director/ GeneralManager (Legal Cell) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319
Shambhubhai Devrajbhai Jaru V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 320
Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/S Govindbhai MPrajapati 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 321
Minalben Satishbhai Solanki V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 322
Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 323
Idea Cellular Limited & 1 Other(S) V/S Union OfIndia Thro Director & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 324
Dipakkumar Nathabhai Patel V/S Narmadaben DhirajlalRadadia & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 325
Jayesh Manharlal Gandhi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 326
Chief Executive & 1 Other(S) V/S VanjibhaiLaljibhai Chaudhary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 327
Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Pagi V/S Deputy ExecutiveEngineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 328
X v/s Indext/C Industrial Extension Cottage & 1other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 329
Shaileshbhai Kandubhai Rathwa V/S Gurjar ShankarlalDevalal 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 330
M/S Harsh Transport Private V/S Union Of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 331
Dhavalkumar Ashokbhai Aghera v/s Reliance GeneralInsurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 332
State Of Gujarat Versus Balvantsinh Amarsinh Raj 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 333
Rekhaben Shashikant Gade V/S State Of Gujarat & 4other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 334
Kumanbhai Chatrabhjubhaihujbhadaraniya & 18other(s) v/s Manavadar Municipality & 14 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 335
Pruthvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v/s State OfGujarat & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 336
Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 337
Pragnesh Harshadbhai Patel @ P.G. @ Pragnesh Gota v/sState Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338
Jaferkhan Allarakabhai Radhanpuri V/S Dholka NagarPalika 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 339
Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 340
Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/O JayprakashNareshkumar Joshi v. Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341
Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal v. State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342
Century Tiles Through Director Ganpatbhai DahyabhaiPatel v. The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343
Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. Vinodkumar Bhanabhai Parmar2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344
Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza v. State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 345
State Of Gujarat v. Pratap Prabhuram Devasi 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 346
Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8 Other(S) V/SRegistrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347
Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 348
Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 349
Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/S Aashish HarjibhaiMadhapariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350
Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/S Superintendent 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 351
Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352
Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353
Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354
State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355
Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356
Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/SDhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357
Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 358
Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S The Central Bank Of IndiaThrough The Chief Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359
Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S Ketan Chandravadan Soni2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360
Bank Of Baroda V/S Harshadgiri Chanchalgiri Goswami2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361
Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 362
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Meraman Dana Harijan& 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363
Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 364
Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/s Chairman & 31others 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365
Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 366
Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee GujaratRepresented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/SAhmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367
Gulamhusen Dadamiya Pir Versus Union Of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 368
Patel Rameshchandra Mangaldas V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 369
Vithal Bogra Shetty V/S Board Of Trustees 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 370
State Of Gujarat V/S Rajeshbhai Ramubhai Patel & 5other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 371
Sharda Chimanbhai Lalbhai V/S Dinesh MohanbhaiPrajapati 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 372
Gharshala Sanstha v/s Jayshriben Ghanshyamlal Bhatt& 5 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 373
Ajaysinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 374
Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 375
Shivpal Singh Chaudhari V/S Central Bureau OfInvestigation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 376
Sanjay Bhulabhai Patel V/S Pankaj Vinodkumar Patni2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 377
Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378
M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its SolePropeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s Competition Commission of India2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379
Inner Vision Education And Charitable Trust V/S UnionOf India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380
Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani VersusNaranbhai Chananbhai Babariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381
Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382
Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S Indian PetrochemicalsCorporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383
Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/S Jaydeepsinh K Rathod2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384
Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra V/S State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385
Kamuben Somaji Bhavaji Thakore v/s State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 386
Chandubhai Fakirbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 387
Anjuman A Noor A Do Jahan Eid E Milad vs. State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 388
Tushar Karsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat VijCo.Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 389
Saumil Hetalkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 390
Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee v. AhmedabadMunicipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 391
Javed alias Thakeli alias Chor Ajijkhan Pathan v. JailSuperintendent 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 392
Manyata Avinash Dolani v. State of Gujarat and Others 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 393
SAMIR @ SEM S/O ABDULBHAI QURESHI Versus STATE OFGUJARAT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 394
Hemlata Jain versus Padmavati Analkumar Mishra 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 395
Mitulbhai Ranchodbhai Lakhani Versus GujaratElectricity Regulatory Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 396
Kamlesh Kumar C. Dave v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 397
Spunpipe & Construction Company v. State ofGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 398
Dharmesh @ Dhamo Ashokbhai Rana v. State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 399
Vidya Ramesh Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 400
Imran @ Chhotu Kadva Istyak Ahemad Siddiki v. State ofGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 401
Piyush Ambalal Gandhi Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 402
Gundeep Singh Sood v Insolvency Professional Agency OfInstitute Of Cost Accountants Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 403
Manorama kumari d/o. Uma shankar prasad v. Union ofindia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 404
M/s Karan Paper Mills versus M/s Shah Paper PackIndustries 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 405
Jayantibhai shravanbhai rajput v. Minor nayra jayantibhairajput through maulika w/o jayantibhai rajput 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 406
Shree Govind Alloys Versus State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 407
Shankar @ shiva maheshwar savai vs. State of gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 408
Aartos International LLP versus Deputy Commissioner(Customs) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 409
FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy DirectorOf Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 410
Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 411
Atlafbhai Rajabali Dosani Vs Superintendent 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 412
Adani Wilmar Limited versus Union of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 413
Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad v. State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj)414
Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 415
SUO MOTU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, CHIEF SECRETARY 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 416
Rafiq Alam Parmar vs State Of Gujarat and 3 Others 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 417
Devendra Babulal Jain versus Income Tax Officer 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 418
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
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 ofmotor accident, the spousal consortium and the parental consortium, the GujaratHigh 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 JusticeSandeep Bhatt enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,42,856/-. Itobserved, "all the three appellant no.1 would be entitled to spousalconsortium, and appellants no.2 and 3 would be entitled to parental consortiumof Rs.40,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/-)."
Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus DeputyCommissioner Of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
The Gujarat High Court bench of JusticeA.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order underGST on the grounds that the notice as well as the order were passed on the samedate, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: Lalitkumar Bhimsen Hemrajani V/SDistrict Collector
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
Observing that the concerned agricultural land was alreadyconverted under Gujarat Land Revenue Code for 'Non-Agricultural' purpose of cottageindustries, the Gujarat High Court has held that it makes no difference ifthere is a change in the nature of industries and has thus, allowed a petitionseeking the revision of plan from 'Marble Cottage Industries' to 'CommercialPurpose'.
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 ofthe Copyright Act, 1957, copyright would subsist in the life time of the authorand until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the yearin which the author dies.
Thus, in a suit pertaining to infringement of artwork, JusticeAP Thaker observed that it cannot be said that the copyright of thePlaintiff had come to an end on a particular date and that the actions of theRespondent reproducing the work under a different trade name cannot beinjuncted. It observed,
"Copyright would not come to an end on a particulardate, it will subsist till the death of the author and even 60 yearsthereafter. Therefore, admittedly the observations of the trial Court thatcopyright has expired in 2011 is legally not tenable."
Case Title: Ayyubkhan Kalekhan Pathan V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition seeking toquash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding thatwhether the cheque was issued by the petitioner or his brother who had the sameinitials was a question to be considered at the stage of trial and prima faciethe intention of the petitioner was to avoid paying back the huge sum to thecomplainant.
Justice Nirzar Desai dismissed a petitionwherein the petitioner, a proprietor of AK Construction claimed that hisbrother's firm, AK Road Constructor was a separate entity and that thecomplaint against a cheque issued by AK Road Contractor did not have anyconnection with him.
Case Title: Madhukantaben D/O SomabhaiShankarbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
Referring to the Registration Act, 1908, the Gujarat HighCourt has opined that if any right concerning a property valued above Rs. 100has been relinquished or extinguished, it requires compulsory registrationbefore the registering authority under the Act.
In the absence of such registration, such relinquishmentcannot affect any immovable property comprised therein and the said documentcannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property orconferring such power, it added.
Case Title : K News Channel Versus State OfGujarat
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, theGujarat High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by the DistrictMagistrate, Ahmedabad cancelling the licence of 'K News Channel'.
OperationOf Roads Within Defence Area Absolute Domain Of Defence Authorities: GujaratHigh Court
Case Title: Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala V/S Union OfIndia Thru The Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
Observing that it is the 'absolute domain' of the Ministryof Defence to decide the opening or closing of the road which falls in thedefence area, the Gujarat High Court has refused to grant relief to thePetitioners complaining that blocking of a road by the defence authorities wascausing them hardship in approaching their society / homes.
"...It is for the army authorities to determinewhich area is sensitive or more prone to such hazard or which is not or throughwhich a passage can be permitted or not and it is their sole discretion and inabsence of any right of any party, a mandate cannot be issued."
Case Title: Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HPBakes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
The Gujarat High Court has ruled thatissues involving enforcement of the conditions of a Franchise Agreement cannotbe the subject matter of an application for interim measures under Section 9 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria andSamir J. Dave, held that conditions of a contract can be enforced only whenthe rights of the parties are finally adjudged and crystallised by theArbitrator. The Court ruled that proceedings under Section 9 of the A&C Actare only for interim measures and that they cannot be converted intoproceedings where a party can indirectly seek the final relief.
Case Title: Pahal Engineers v. The Gujarat WaterSupply and Sewerage Board, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8727 of 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
The High Court of Gujarat has held that awrit petition would not be maintainable against an order of the arbitraltribunal whereby it has rejected the claim of a party on the ground that itspleadings 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 partythat essentially means a final disclosure of its claims and the order of thearbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Can'tRefuse Arms License Unless Applicant Found Unworthy U/S 14 Arms Act: GujaratHigh Court
Case Title : Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ petitionchallenging the order of District Magistrate rejecting the Petitioner'sapplication for obtaining an arms license, stating that he was not foundineligible under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Case Title: Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel V/S StateOf Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that when theservice of an employee is dismissed in culmination of disciplinary inquiry onaccount of misconduct, the plea moved by him for regularization of the periodof suspension cannot be considered in isolation.
It added that since the Petitioner had challenged thedismissal before the High Court, the two proceedings will go hand in hand.
"The Court is not inclined to entertain thispetition as the claim of the petitioner with regards to the regularization ofthe period of suspension as prayed for now before this Court, cannot beexamined in isolation, pending the challenge to the order of dismissal whichthe petitioner has already made in a separate petition," JusticeAY Kogje said.
Case Title: Mansinh Amarsinh Devdhara V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained it is a humantendency to wait for the returning of a missing family member for many yearsand therefore, in a suit for declaration for the death of such person, itcannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.
The Appellant-Original Plaintiff had filed a suit for adeclaration that his son was missing since 31.01.1984 and could not be foundtill the filing of the suit. Therefore, he sought that the Nagarpalika, Suratdeclare his son dead and make an entry to this effect. No written statement wasfiled by the Defendant-State. However, the suit was dismissed by the TrialCourt and a first appeal against the same was also unsuccessful on ground oflimitation.
Case Title : Chhayaben @ Hetalben Atulbhai AsodariyaVersus The Registrar Of Birth And Death/Chief Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed a writ seekingdirection upon the Registrar of Birth and Death/Chief Officer, to delete thename of a minor's biological father's name from his birth certificate andreplace it with his adoptive father's name.
For this, Justice A.S. Supehia opined thatneither is the consent of the biological father required to be obtained by theregistrar 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 StateOf 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 anon-bailable case and the cancellation of bail, the Gujarat High Court hasquashed the bail order of an Accused person on the ground that 'misused theliberty and grossly violated the conditions of the bail.'
The Applicant (Original Complainant) indicated that goodsworth INR 42,35,000 were stolen from his house and as a result a complaint wasregistered for offences punishable under Sec 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the IPC.However, it was submitted that Respondent No. 2 (Accused person) committed thecrime of a similar nature during the pendency of the instant proceedings andtherefore, bail should not be allowed to continue. There were also additionalaverments that the Accused person was served notice in 2017 for the instantapplication and yet he chose not to cooperate with it. The APP submitted thatthe Accused person had committed several offences of similar nature, includingduring the pendency of the petition. Two more offences were committed in 2021and therefore, bail ought to be cancelled.
Case Title : Bhalodiya Ravikumar JaynatilalVersus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consistingof Justice Biren Vaishnav held that delay in appointment, whenentirely attributable to the employer and caused due to no fault of thecandidate could not be allowed to result in a delayed promotion for the saidcandidate.
Briefly, the facts of this case are that the Gujarat PanchayatServices Selection Board issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post ofMulti-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 hegot additional 2.79 marks for sports, making his total 58.59.
Case Title: Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal VersusGujarat State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
The Gujarat High Court has held that where any informationsought under the Right to Information Act is destroyed and it is not the caseof malafide destruction of information, penalty under Section 20(2) of RTI Actshall not be attracted.
Section 20 stipulates disciplinary action against a PublicInformation Officer where information sought is not supplied within the timespecified, or is malafidely denied or incorrect information is knowingly givenor information is destroyed.
Case Title: Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/SGhanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that Section 33C ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is for the purpose of execution of the awardor dealing with the pre-existing right or benefit arising out of the settlementof a workman against his employer. The same does not make way for a LabourCourt to enter into an adjudicatory process, giving a finding on disputed factsbetween the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje washearing a challenge to a Labour Court's order directing thePetitioner-organisation to pay full wages to the respondent-workman from2006-2013.
Case Title: M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto.Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. TirumalaTechnocast Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
The Gujarat High Court has held that the acid test todetermine whether or not a dispute relating to property is a "commercialdispute" under Commercial Court's Act, 2015 is that the property inquestion is used "exclusively" in trade or commerce.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and JusticeSamir Dave observed, "Dispute arising out of agreementsrelating to property used exclusively in trade and commerce would constitute acommercial dispute...a commercial dispute would otherwise not cease to becommercial dispute merely because action involves recovery of immovableproperty or realisation of money out of immovable property or involve any otherrelief 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 apetition 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 AravindKumar observed, "All these issues including arbitrability canbe examined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself."
The observation was made while deciding the applicationpreferred by the Petitioner for appointment of sole arbitrator in connectionwith a dispute arising from agreement relating to operation of a restaurantowned by the respondent.
Case Title: Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to a publicservant employed in the Police force and his wife, in a case of dowryharassment initiated at the instance of their daughter in law.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel observed that merelybecause the accused father-in-law is in Police is no ground to deny himanticipatory bail and adequate conditions can be imposed to prevent tamperingof evidence. In fact, the bench was of the view that the father-in-law being apublic servant, there could not be any apprehension that he would flee fromtrial.
Case Title: Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a freelancereporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plotsreserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approachingthe Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice AravindKumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that thepetition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of the plots had beenmade and there was not even a whisper in the petition as to why the petitionerdid not raise his "little finger" from 2003 / 2006, particularly whenhe claims to be an RTI activist, a public spirited person and espousing thecause of the public.
Case Title : Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel VersusNa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
The Gujarat High Court has held that even if a mother seeksto 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 suchproperty if relevant material details are not provided.
Case Title: Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S StateOf Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Emphasising on the principles of proportionality and paritywhile determining punishment, the High Court has reduced punishment ofdeduction of pension from 100% to 25% imposed on a sub-inspector accused ofaiding an under-trial to escape police custody.
The Petitioner-accused challenged the order of 2015 passedby the Respondent-State wherein the Petitioner's monthly pension was deducted100%. The Petitioner also challenged the order where the Respondent-State hadrefused to reconsider the impugned order.
Case Title: Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/SDeputy Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
The Gujarat High Court has said that where the service of aworkman is terminated in violation of the procedure for Retrenchment &Re-Employment provided under Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, an order of reinstatement ought to follow.
Holding thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav setaside the order of the Labour Court which granted backwages worth Rs. 72,000 tothe terminated workmen, and directed their reinstatement in service, withcontinuity of service. It said,
"Compensation in lieu of reinstatement will bedetrimental to the petitioners who have worked for over a period of 20 years."
Case Title: Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/SMaulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
The Gujarat High Court has held that an institutionregistered under the Wakf Board, indulging in commercial activities such as printingmagazines apart from imparting religious education, is an 'industry' for thepurposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It added that a 'Maulvi' who is entrusted with themanagement of such commercial activity, in the present case managing all the printingmaterial, etc., is a 'workman' under the Act and thus, the provisions under theAct relating to termination of service will be attracted.
Case Title: Balkrishna Spintex Private Limitedversus The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that aparty is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after it had signed thedischarge voucher without any protest or demur, since no arbitrable disputecould be said to subsist.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that anapplication for referring the dispute to arbitration could not be entertainedmerely on the ground that the party had, within 15 days from the receipt of anamount, contended that the said amount was received by it under duress.
Case Title: Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consistingof Justice Niral R. Mehta held that while exercising itspowers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the court could not impose any conditionwhich amounted to it exercising powers envisaged under some other enactment.The court held that any such condition imposed would be completely beyond thecourt's jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a FIR lodged forviolation of the Environment (Protection) Act against a factory owner forallegedly 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 aglaring example of horrifying side effects of industrial growth, wherein notonly society at large is being affected, but it is prejudicial to the cattle aswell. 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 oftheir meager profit, manipulating with the nature and life of human."
Case Title: Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/SThe Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Registrar underthe Births and Deaths Registration Act is bound to issue certificate in thename of adoptive father where there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of theApplicant.
The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia ina petition moved by the mother of one 'Nidhi', seeking to include her secondhusband/ Nidhi's adoptive father's name in Nidhi's birth certificate. The benchobserved that the Registrar cannot insist on a decree of the Court with regardto the adoption since as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and MaintenanceAct, 1956, a "presumption" is drawn in favour of the Petitioner underSection 16 of the Adoptions Act, since there is no rebuttal to the adoptiondeed of her daughter "Nidhi".
Case Title : Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya VersusSaurashtra University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
A single-judge bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati ofthe Gujarat High Court held that in terms of conduction of examination andresults for admission to LLB course, the rules of a University would prevailover the Rules of Bar Council of India.
In this case, the High Court upheld Saurashtra Universityrules that prohibited admission for an LLB course in cases where the graduatehad not passed their examination in a single attempt.
GujaratHigh Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With TheInterest
Case title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union OfIndia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
The Gujarat High Court bench of JusticeA.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department torefund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.
The applicants/petitioners have sought the direction to therespondents/department to grant a refund of the amount of IGST already paid bythe 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. NimeshbhaiVitthalbhai 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 noticingthat the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which thesamples were collected, were not followed.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the FoodSafety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not clean atthe place of collecting the sample. He had also admitted that the covers of thebottles were not cleaned at the time. It said,
"This Court is of the view that though thecomplainant had explained all the formalities for collecting the samples but,so longer as the mandatory provisions are concerned for cleanliness of bottlesand also cleanliness of the cover is concerned, same is not proved. On thecontrary admitted that the same is not cleaned and therefore...this Court is ofthe opinion that (trial) Court has given cogent and convincing reasons foracquitting the respondent, which learned APP has failed to dislodge them."
Case Title: Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
The High Court held that under Section 15 of the HinduSuccession Act, when a widow dies intestate, her heirs including son anddaughter out of wedlock or even from illicit relationships are entitled to theshare in her property.
Justice AP Thaker further held that since thedeceased 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 HighCourt.
"It is worthwhile to refer to Hindu Succession Act,wherein under Section 15, a Hindu widow can inherit land from his secondhusband and even her children born out of first marriage can also inherit landfrom second husband."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel,Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245
Referring Section 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, theHigh Court explained that a Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed anyoffence under the Act, if he has purchased the food article in question from amanufacturer, distributor or dealer with written warranty.
Keeping in view the provision, the High Court refused tointerfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate, acquitting the vendor andowner of one Didar Traders.
BankCan't Attach Customer's PPF Account For Settlement Of His Debt/ Liability:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta OfRajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246
The High Court reiterated the settled proposition of lawthat the amount of Public Provident Fund account shall not be liable to anyattachment in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the account holder.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia washearing the case of a Petitioner who had invested Hindu Undivided Family'smoney under Centre's Public Provident Fund Scheme with the Respondent-Bank ofBaroda.
Case Title: Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247
Finding itself in agreement with other High Courts acrossthe country, the High Court held that the increment earned by an employee(government servant) for the past period of service cannot be denied merelybecause the said employee had retired when the increment became payable.
Justice Biren Vaishnav concurred with the DelhiHigh Court that when increment was earned for past period, its denial on theground that on the date when the increment became payable the governmentservant was not holding the post as he had retired, was not valid.
Case Title : Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State OfGujarat
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 anew-born child to be retained by the surrogate mother for a particular periodof time, for the purpose of breastfeeding.
A division bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi andJustice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the court must interpret the law asit stands and not on considerations of perceived morality. Thus, a new-bornchild 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 thesurrogacy agreement signed between the parties.
Case No.: Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel KelavniMandal 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 thepurpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court alsodirected the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal oflease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.
The development ensued after the Court noted that thecompetent government authority had passed the order for forfeiture, beyond theshow cause notice that was issued to the Petitioner.
Case Title: Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250
In a petition involving alleged misuse of cheque, theGujarat High Court has directed to send the disputed cheque to the ForensicsLaboratory for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert to ensure the 'largerobject of fair trial.'
The Petitioner, an accused, for offence under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had challenged the order of the trialcourt and Sessions Judge which rejected his plea for forensic examination ofthe cheque. The Petitioner made the prayer for sending the cheque forexamination by the Handwriting Expert to determine the ageing and the writingon the cheque.
Case Title: Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union OfIndia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrinedunder Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court has issued a writ ofmandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the DebtRecovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar andJustice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocateenrolled in the Gujarat Bar Council and practising before various courts.
AbsenceOf Threat To Applicant No Ground To Refuse Firearm License Under Arms Act:Gujarat High Court
Case Title.: Khanji Mohammad Saiyed GulamrasoolV/S Additional District Magistrate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reasons forrefusal of a firearm license under the Arms Act should have a nexus and shouldbe in context with the provisions of the Act and that the license cannot berevoked on irrelevant considerations.
The Bench of Justice AS Supehia furtherobserved that the authority could not have revoked the Applicant's licensemerely because he had not received any threats or there was no incident ofassault on him.
"The revocation of the license on the two grounds asmentioned hereinabove, is absolutely illegal and de hors the provisions ofSection 17(3) of the Act," it observed.
Case Title: Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(KoliPatel) V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253
The High Court recently affirmed the conviction of a manunder Section 302 IPC for Murder, while observing that the chain ofcircumstantial evidence was completed by the prosecution with cogent evidence,to bring home his guilt.
The Bench comprising Justices Vipul Pancholi andRajendra Sareen heavily relied on the statement made by a prosecutionwitness who saw the accused near the cot of the deceased with a weapon as alsothe recovery of a blood-stained Dharia from the accused.
Case Title: chief officer v/s decd. Shreesolanki kanubhai danabhai through legal heirs manjulaben w/o kanubhai solanki
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 254
The High Court has upheld the power of municipalities underthe Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder to retire amunicipal servant at any time on or after he attains the age of 55 years ongiving him three months notice.
A bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observed,
"It was within the powers of the municipality inexercise of powers under Sec.271 to frame rules. Proviso to Rule 5 indicatesthat the action can be taken by a municipality against an employee where employeereaches the age of superannuation. This, of course, is subject to he beinggiven three months notice and notice pay in lieu thereof."
Case Title: Rafik Adam Sumra V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 255
The Gujarat High Court has granted temporary bail of threedays to Rafik Adam Sumra, accused in the infamous heroin smuggling case of2018, for attending the marriage ceremony of his daughter.
A Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi and JusticeSandeep Bhatt ordered that Rafik shall be released on temporary bailduring the period from July 16 to July 18, 2022, with police escort, onexecuting personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- before the Jail authority. The cost ofpolice escort shall be borne by him.
DebtRecovery Tribunal Can't Go Beyond Reliefs Sought For By A Party: Gujarat HighCourt
Case Title: Gujarat State Financial CorporationLtd V/S India Sme Assets Reconstruction Company Limited & 8 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 256
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that a DebtRecovery Tribunal cannot go beyond and grant prayers that are not even soughtfor by a party before it.
While hearing a petition filed by the original defendantagainst the impugned order in favour of original applicant (respondentherein), Justice Vaibhavi D Nanavati observed,
"The submissions advanced by Mr. Asthavadi, thelearned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant requires consideration as canbe seen from the above prayers there is no such prayer as prayed for by therespondent No.1 as granted by the DRTII. It appears that DRT-II has erred ingranting the prayer which was not prayed for even by the respondentNo.1...Accordingly this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 27.06.2014."
Case Title: Jayesh Nebhabhai Kambariya V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 257
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that no writ canlie on the principle that candidates have a legitimate expectation to get theirraw marks known or attempt answer keys. It was further remarked, "merelybecause the apprehension of the petitioners is that they had got less marksthan expected is no ground on which a challenge to the adoption ofnormalization procedure can be sustained."
Case Title: Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal V/S TheState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 258
The Gujarat High Court has observed that an employerscolding its employee to maintain discipline in the office would not amount tothe former abetting the suicide of latter and it would not constitute anoffence within the fold of Section 306 of IPC.
Justice Nirzar Desai further held that if bonafide action of maintaining discipline in the office is registered asan offence under Section 306 IPC, then it would post a threat to all employers.It observed,
"When an employee is scolded just with a view to maintainoffice discipline and out of fear or being hypersensitive, if an employeecommits suicide, that would not constitute an offence attracting provisions ofSection 306 of Indian Penal Code as the action taken by the employer was ingood faith to maintain office discipline."
Case Title: Nasik Merchants' Co-Operative BankLtd. V/s State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 259
The Gujarat High Court has recently declined to cancel thebail of the Respondent-Accused for offences under Sections 406 and 420 addedwith Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the ground that the Applicant-Bankhad already taken 'symbolic possession' of certain properties long back.However, the Bank had not proceeded further in almost six years regarding theseproperties.
The High Court, therefore, felt that it should not interferewith the order of the Sessions Court which had granted bail to the Accused videan order of 2016.
Case Title: Narughar Songhar Goswami V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 260
The Gujarat High Court has refused regular bail underSection 439 of CrPC to a 66 years old man, from whose property contraband(Poppy Straw) worth Rs. 16.6 lakh was seized.
Justice SH Vora observed that though the senior citizenwas not at the scene of offence or in the nearby vicinity, however, since hewas the property owner, Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 is attracted to the case.
Case Title: Western Dedicated Freight CorridorCorporation Of India V/S Original Claimants & 3 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 261
The Gujarat High Court has held that private negotiationsbetween government agencies for land transfer does not determine the truemarket value of the land.
Thus, the High Court expressed doubt over an Arbitral awardwhich granted compensation in favour of the private landowners ('Claimants'),whose lands were acquired by Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation OfIndia, based on rates fixed by the Railway Administration for acquiring certainstate government lands for a Freight Corridor, in a nearby village.
Case Title: Garden Silk Mills Limited & 1Other(S) V/S Liquidator Of Petrofils Cooperative Limited & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 262
The Gujarat High Court upheld the argument made by aninsolvent company having undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processunder the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, that failure of an OperationalCreditor to file its claim with the Resolution Professional during theinsolvency resolution process or to challenge the Resolution plan beforeNCLT/NCLAT, extinguishes its claim upon approval of the Resolution Plan.
Case Title: Solanki Haribhai Arjanbhai V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 263
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that it is obligatoryfor the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaintand produce the seized properties before the Court on expiry of 45 days fromthe date of seizure, as specified under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
In the absence of such an exercise, the purpose of seizureand the bank guarantee would stand frustrated and consequently, the propertywill have to be released to the person from whom it was seized without bankguarantee, the court added.
Case Title: Dhanrajsinh Gambhirsinh Thakore V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 264
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that under the GujaratMineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017,transit permit can be suspended/ locking of online ATR account can be orderedfor alleged violations only for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Justice AS Supehia observed,
"Respondent authorities, at the first instancebefore locking the ATR account of the petitioner are supposed to give ashow-cause notice and hearing and after considering such a representation orthe defence of the petitioner, would have to pass the order suspending orlocking the online ATR account of petitioner."
Case Title: Narendrasinh Dosabhai Gohil V/SManaging Director & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 265
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petition filed byan employee seeking that his period of suspension be treated as 'regular' onthe ground that the Petitioner had been charge-sheeted and was only partiallyexonerated from the charges against him. Justice Biren Vaishnav observed:
"Only when an employee is partially exonerated,would the authority need to decide the question of whether the suspension canbe treated to be wholly unjustified and whether he should therefore be givensuch proportion of pay and allowance as the competent authority would prescribeby a specific order...Here is a case where on a charge-sheet being issued, theorder of penalty was passed. Obviously therefore not exonerating the petitionerfrom the charge. It was therefore, within the right of the employer to treatthe period of suspension as such reinstating the petitioner in service with acondition that orders of regularization of suspension is kept in abeyance."
GravityOf Offence Cannot Overweigh Legal Proof: Gujarat High Court Upholds AcquittalOf POCSO Accused
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Hasmukhbhai @Harshadbhai Dahyabhai Makwana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 266
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the appeal of the StateGovernment challenging the acquittal of a person accused under the POCSO Act,citing lack of evidence. A bench of Justice SH Vora and JusticeRajendran Sareen observed:
"Here in this case it is to be noted that on oneside the complainant has alleged against the respondent accused regardingsexual assault upon her victim daughter and merely after a span of 3 to 4 daysshe has alleged against her own husband regarding sexual assault upon hervictim daughter. As such, two contradictory versions have been stated by thecomplainant within a span of 4 days against two persons and both theallegations are based on suspicion and doubt, one against the presentrespondent accused and another against her husband. As such, mere suspicion anddoubt cannot be considered to be cogent and convincing proof to prove theallegations."
Case Title: Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State OfGujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 267
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea seeking probe byspecialized agency like CID (Economic Offences Wing) or Anti-Corruption Bureauinto alleged corruption and financial irregularities of "millions ofrupees" in the Agriculture Produce Market.
Justice Nirzar Desai observed that thecomplainant (Applicant herein) could not establish his locus standi and that hecould not point out as to how he is aggrieved by the alleged offences committedby the persons named in the application.
Case Title: M/S Harekrushna Infra Projects PvtLtd & 1 Other(S) V/S State Bank Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 268
The Gujarat High Court has held that once a customer acts onthe basis of offer made by a Bank under its One Time Settlement scheme, theprinciple of promissory estoppel applies and the latter is estopped from actingto the detriment of the former.
"It is clear that the principle of promissoryestoppel applies. The bank by its conduct of offering an OTS settlementintended to create legal relations which the petitioners had acted upon inlight of the promise made and paid the amount on or before 30th of December2017. This action was apparently accepted in principle by the bank as not onlyfor the title clearance certificate but valuation reports letters were writtenby by the bank to the advocates and the valuers. The amounts were paid andaccepted by the bank and once the petitioners had acted upon on the promise setout by the bank, the bank cannot be allowed to go back on its proposal on thebasis of a letter dated 28th August 2018 stating that the scheme of OTS was notapplicable as the cases of the petitioners was reported as fraud."
Case Title: M/s Magirsha Industries versus M/sGujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that evenin cases where the dispute has been referred to arbitration under the Micro,Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Court isempowered under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(A&C Act) to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar heldthat in view of Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the A&CAct would be applicable once the dispute is referred to arbitration under theMSME Act, and hence, the Court can extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunalunder Section 29A of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Navinchandra Somchand, Died ThroughHis Heirs & 1 Other(S) V/S Heirs Of Somchand Bechardas & 6 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 270
The Gujarat High Court has explained the relationshipbetween Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, while holding that theprovisions in effect supplement each other.
Section 91 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and otherdispositions of property reduced to form of documents) relates to lead evidenceof terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties, which arereduced to form of documents. This Section merely forbids proving the contentsof writing otherwise than by writing itself.
Section 92 (Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement) dealswith conclusiveness of the documentary evidence and provides exceptions inwhich oral evidence against documentary evidence can be admitted.
Case Title: Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/SAhmedabad Municipal Corporation & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order of theAhmedabad Municipal Corporation directing recovery of Rs. 63,878 from itsformer employee on the ground that the terminal benefits were wrongly grantedto him at a higher pay-scale than he was entitled to.
Justice Biren Vaishnav relied on severaldecisions of the High Court where it was held that when employees are paidexcess amount, not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part andif such employees had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to themwas more than what they were entitled to, they can't be held responsible for amistake on part of the employer.
Case Title: Rajendrasinh Velubha Jadeja V/SGeneral Manager (Project)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained that when adispute is raised by employees working in a mine or an office of the mine orones employed in a mine, it needs to be determined whether the dispute has anexus to activities in a mine. Only when the industrial dispute concerns a minecan the appropriate government be deemed to be the Central Government as perSec 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench explained.
NationalE-Assessment Centre Acted Thick Skinned: Gujarat High Court
Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 12864of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 273
The Gujarat High Court held that it waspandemic time when the department should have adopted a liberal approach inrefusing the request for time for filing objections to the draft assessmentorder and finally passing the assessment order. The department actedthick-skinned.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and JusticeBharghav D. Karia has observed that the assessment proceedings were remanded tothe Assessing Officer to be taken up afresh from the stage of the draftassessment order. The court directed the assessing officer to pass anappropriate order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus KishorbhaiDevjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
The Gujarat High Court has held that where substantialevidence to connect an accused with the crime is lacking, other corroborativeevidence loses its significance.
In light of the aforesaid, a Bench comprising Justices SHVora and Rajendra Sareen upheld an order of acquittal passed by the SessionsCourt in a criminal case under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of the IndianPenal Code and Sec 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
Case Title: abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltdv/s nathabhai bhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
The Gujarat High Court observed that in case of anincomplete show cause notice, to which the respondent workman had no occasionto file his response as expected by the employer, inquiry by issuing specificcharge sheet is necessary.
Justice AY Kogje thereby held that whenthe show cause notice /charge was not specific enough for the workman torespond, termination without proper departmental inquiry was a breach ofSection 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
GujaratHigh Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail Granted To Rape Accused 5 YrsAgo
Case Title: Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State OfGujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276
The Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel theanticipatory bail granted to a rape accused five years ago, stating that allthis time the applicant-victim did not take a stand that seriousness of offencehas not been considered by the Court below and that the accused has not misusedhis liberty nor violated any condition.
The accused was booked for offences punishable underSections 376, 366, 328, 395, 397, 344, 406, 420, 506(2) and 120(B) of theIndian Penal Code.
Case Title: Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 277
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a rape-accused whileobserving that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is of theprima-facie view that the alleged act was consensual in nature.
A bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora observed that therecord and photographs of the parties indicate that the parties were in goodterms and the applicant was keenly interested to tie the knot with the victim.
Case Title: Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s ShreeSayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
Expressing shock towards the misconduct and negligencedisplayed by the Petitioner, a Manager of a registered Society, in his dutieswhich 'tarnished the image of the society', the Gujarat High Court hasdismissed the application for quashing the communication regarding histermination.
Case Title: M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles AProprietorship Firm Thorugh Its Prorprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/SSyndicate Bank Surat Main Branch
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
The Gujarat High Court has held that once the Bank agrees tosell a property mortgaged with it by a loan defaulter and a third party paysfull consideration for purchase of said property after entering into a validagreement with the Bank, the latter cannot turn back and refuse the title deed,no objection certificate/no due certificate.
Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati thus directed theRespondent, Syndicate bank, to release the charge over the property in questionand hand over the original title documents of the property to the Applicant(purchaser) within two weeks.
Can'tMaintain Proceedings U/S 34 Arbitration Act Before Two Fora: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S Sanganer Enviro ProjectDevelopment V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
The Gujarat High Court, while dismissing the CivilApplication of the Petitioner which challenged the award of the relevantarbitration, has observed that the Petitioner had 'conveniently' initiated twoproceedings- one before the instant Bench and another before the District Courtunder Sec 34. Keeping in view this circumstance, the High Court rejected thepetition.
Case Title: Krishna Calibration Services v.Jasmin Bharat Patel, R/Special Civil Application No. 5682 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
The Gujarat High Court has held that aparty can withdraw its consent for reference to arbitration under Section 89 ofCPC anytime before the court has acted upon such a reference.
The Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi wasdealing with a Special Civil Application under Article 227 against an order ofthe Civil Judge whereby the application jointly given by the parties to theproceedings to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 89(2)(a) ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') cameto be rejected on the original plaintiff, who initially consented for the same,withdrew the consent for sending it to the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Akil Valibhai Piplodwala(Lokhandwala) V/S District Superintendent Of Police, Panchamahal At Godhra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed the writpetition of a Pakistani citizen challenging the decision of the Superintendentof Police which directed him to leave India within 24 hours of receipt of thenotice. Justice AS Supehia also reiterated:
"In the present case, indubitably, the petitioner isa Pakistan citizen and as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, he cannotinvoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, hence, he has no rightto enter and remain within the territories of India. He is bound to the act, asper the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondent authorities."
GujaratHigh Court Dismisses Plea Against Outsourcing Work & Administration Of 'MidDay Meal' Scheme
Case Title: Madyahan Bhojan Yojna KarmachariSangh V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 283
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition againstoutsourcing the work and administration of the Mid Day Meal Scheme to privateplayers.
A single bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observedthat the objective of Resolution dated 09.11.1984, which first introduced theconcept of Mid Day Meal Schemes in the schools run under the State PrimarySchools, was to provide nutritional support to students of the primary stage invillages and in areas of Municipal Corporations. At that point, the governmentwas considering a proposal to hand over the implementation of the Scheme to NonGovernment Organizations on pilot basis.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Raib Jusab SamaMusalman
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 284
The Gujarat High Court has declined to overturn the orderacquitting Respondent who was accused of counterfeiting currency notes whilenoting that 'no iota of evidence' came on record to point out the guilt of theRespondent-Accused.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeRajendra Sareen concluded that no incriminating evidence was availableagainst the Accused and that merely based on a Transfer Warrant, the Accusedhad been implicated in the case.
Case Title: Sailesh Shantilal Lunavia V/SCarborandum Universal Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 285
While reiterating that Courts have a duty to interpretstatutes with social welfare to further the statutory goal, the Gujarat HighCourt has directed the Labour Court at Jamnagar to re-examine the issue of awardinginterest to the Petitioner workmen.
The Petitioners had submitted that there is no discussion onthe issue as to why the interest was not awarded to them.
Justice Biren Vaishnav had taken up both SpecialCivil Applications for the final hearing and relied extensively on Manager,Naaz Cinema Vs. Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumadiya w/d of Rameshbhai RaijibhaiGhumadiya [2011(2) G.L.H.523] adjudicated by the Division Bench of theGujarat High Court.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat - For & OnBehalf Of R N Joshi, Food Inspec V/S Ilesh Himmatlal Bhuptani & 3 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 286
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of acquittal ina matter involving offences under Sections 2(ia)(a)(f)(m) and Section 7(1)(5)and Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The Bench comprising Dr Justice AshokkumarJoshi found that the Sanitary Inspector while collecting the sampleof soji had failed to seal the product in a wooden box and hadnot made three parts of the 600 grams of samples which was mandatory under Rule14 and Sec 16(b) of the Act.
Case title - Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Jadav VersusThe State Of Gujarat & 1 other
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to four keyaccused in the July 2016 Una Dalig Flogging case. This is the firsttime in the last six years that the court has granted bail to the accused inthe case.
The court observed that the accused have already servednearly six years of imprisonment, and there has been little progress in thetrial of the case. The accused were allegedly a part of a group of cowvigilantes who attacked some Dalit men for skinning a dead cow in Una on July11, 2016.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Laxmanbhai @Lakhabhai Pratapbhai Thakor & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 288
In a significant decision, the Gujarat High Court has madeit clear that a dying declaration cannot be said to be inadmissible merelybecause it was given orally. A single bench of Dr. Justice AshokkumarJoshi observed that an "oral dying declaration" given by thedeceased, which is not controverted by the defence in cross-examination, isadmissible in evidence.
Holding thus, the High Court allowed the State's appeal andoverturned the decision of the Sessions Court acquitting the husband andin-laws of the deceased for abetting her to commit suicide by harassment fordowry.
MotorAccident Claims Tribunal Can Recall Its Own Order If Claimant Plays Fraud:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: the new india assurance co. Ltd v/sthakor kanaji viraji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that when a partybefore the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case claimant, plays a fraudwith the Tribunal, the Tribunal is empowered to recall its order by which itgranted relief.
Justice Gita Gopi observed,
"The review application would survive having fallenunder Order 47(1) of CPC since it was an error apparent on the face of record.Even otherwise, as it was urged of fraud by the driver and owner, the Tribunalhad power to recall its own order."
Case Title: Rayma Adham Sela Versus State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 290
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order of trial courtacquitting one Rayma Adham Sela accused of forging documents to show himself asthe legal heir of original landowners who migrated to Pakistan in the year1971-72.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeRajendra Sareen was told that after the original owners of the landand house left for Pakistan, the accused created false, fabricated andconcocted affidavits and entered their names in the revenue records bycommitting offence of cheating and forgery.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 291
Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in ChairmanRailway Board and Ors. vs. Chandrima Das and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC465, Justice AS Supehia of the Gujarat High Court hasreiterated that the right to live includes the right to live with humandignity, and the term 'person' used in Art 21 extends to citizens and foreignnationals, alike.
The High Court made these remarks in the background of apetition by an ailing Canadian woman who was being denied a kidney transplantbasis the lack of a Domicile Certificate. The Respondent authorities wereinsisting upon the woman first obtain a Domicile Certificate in order for herto undertake the necessary procedure for kidney transplantation.
Case Title: Vijaybhai Mansibhai Khavada(Khartani) V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 292
Justice Niral R Mehta of the Gujarat High Court has declinedto exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quashthe FIR particularly, when the offence of Sec 302 was involved.
Justice Mehta relied on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State ofMaharashtra and other 'celebrated judgements' of the Supreme Court toconclude that the power of quashing FIR should be exercised sparingly, withcircumspect, in the 'rarest of rare cases'.
StateAction Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction In Contractual Setting: Gujarat HighCourt
Case Title: M/S. Overseas healthcare pvt. Ltd.V/s state of gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 293
The Gujarat High Court has observed that when the State orits instrumentality enters into a contract with a contractor or bidder, theywould be governed by the terms of the contract and ordinarily both the partieswould be governed by the law that governs the terms and conditions of thecontract. It added, that in such circumstances, the acts of the Statewould not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice AravindKumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri held thus whiledismissing the writ petition filed the Petitioner, a manufacturer in thehealthcare sector having entered into a contract with the State for supply ofcertain medicine, challenging the Risk Purchase Recovery Orders issued by theGujarat Medical Services (Respondent No. 2).
YesBank Is A Private Entity, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Universal Hospital A1 Ain Llc V/SM/S Yes Bank Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 294
The Gujarat High Court has held that Yes Bank Ltd is aprivate bank and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution.
A single bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observedthat private financial institutions, carrying commercial activities or businesswould not come under the scope of 'State' as defined under Article 12,although, they are performing public duties. It highlighted that such thatprivate financial institutions do not receive any financial assistance from theGovernment and and no state protection is offered to such institutions.
Case Title: Anilsinh Laghubha Jadeja V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 285
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that preventivedetention orders can be interfered with at pre-execution stage, i.e., beforethe person accused is detained, if the said order is passed on vague,irrelevant grounds.
The Petitioner had filed the instant application since heapprehended being detained under Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASAAct) on the pretext of the FIRs for offences punishable under Sections 65AE, 81and 98(2) of Prohibition Act. He primarily contested that his alleged activitydid not affect the maintenance of public adversely.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agarwal v Insolvency andBankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 296
The Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of JusticeA.S. Supehia, while adjudicating a writ petition in SunilKumar Agarwal v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), hasstayed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of IBBI against theResolution Professional, requiring the latter to undergo pre-registrationeducational course from the IPA of which he is a member. The next date ofhearing is 09.09.2022.
Case Title: Gopalbhai Naranbhai @ NarubhaiBhagubhai Ratadiya V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a revision petitionseeking reconsideration of application filed by Petitioner-Accused underSection 227 CrPC for discharge from a murder and assault case.
The Bench comprising Justice Samir Dave notedthat the charge and framing of charge have been deferred time and again due toseveral applications moved by the petitioner along with co-accused whichultimately prolonged the trial. It observed,
"Present petition is nothing but a delaying tacticas the application seems to have been deferred on several occasions, whereasthe co-accused seem to have been assassinating and languishing in the prisonwherein the charge till date has not been framed or followed by thecommencement of the trial due to several applications moved by thepetitioner...The very purpose and the object of following the provisions ofSections 226 to 228 of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure the expeditious disposal of theSessions Case so that the accused is discharged if there is not sufficientmaterial against him or he can be tried quickly by following the due procedurelaid down under Chapter-28 of the Cr.P.C."
Case Title: m/s. Mahee cotex v/s central bank ofindia, authorised officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 288
The Gujarat High Court has declined to exercise its writjurisdiction under Article 226 in a petition challenging order of the DebtRecovery Tribunal which rejected Petitioner's application for preponement ofhearing, fearing dispossession from property.
Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed that theremedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are bothexpeditious and effective and thus court must refrain from exercising its writjurisdiction in such matters.
Case Title: Jamnagar Municipal Corporation V/SAvdesh Kishorbhai Solanki
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289
The Gujarat High Court has held that a workman cannot bedenied the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act whichprescribes conditions precedent to retrenchment merely because he is engaged oncontract basis, given that he rendered continuous services for several years,without any break.
In this light, Justice AY Kogje dismissedthe petition filed by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation challenging the awardof the Labour Court which directed reinstatement of one such contractualworkman, whose services were the terminated due to outsourcing of contractwork.
Case Title: power grid corporation of indialimited. V/s manojbhai dashrathbhai patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 300
The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that under the IndianTelegraph Act, 1885, determination of full compensation to the aggrieved can bedone by the civil court if the dispute is regarding the insufficiency ofcompensation paid under Section 10(d) of the Act.
Justice Umesh Trivedi found that such claimsneed not be filed before the District Judge as contended by the petitionerauthority, particularly since it had not paid full compensation in the case.
"Once there is no payment of full compensation,there is no question of directing a person to approach District Judge by way ofapplication against insufficiency of compensation. For non-payment of compensationunder all heads of damages conceivable, remedy lies before the civil Court.Here in this case, no such compensation is even contemplated by the petitioner- defendant and they are satisfied with payment made towards cutting of treesand damage to standing crops."
Case Title.: Kamleshkumar Mohanji Methana V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 301
While allowing a revision application under Section 397 ofCrPC seeking quashing of a judgement convicting the Petitioner under Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Gujarat High Court reiterated thedistinction between Sections 482 and Sec 320 of the Code.
Section 320 CrPC prescribes power of Court to compoundcertain offences. Section 482 CrPC is inherent power of High Court. The Benchof Justice Samir Dave emphasized that compounding of offencesis not the same as quashing. It reiterated:
"In compounding of offences, power of a criminal courtis circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court isguided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation ofopinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceedingor criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether theends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimateconsequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."
Case Title: Gulamkadar Kasambhai Shaikh v. TheState Of Gujarat Thru The Principal Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 302
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Governmentemployee is entitled to avail the benefits of medical facilities without anyfetters, and that their claim for reimbursement should not be denied by theState mechanically.
The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav extensivelyrelied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Chanrakant Kantilal Dave v.State of Gujarat to order full reimbursement of expenses borne by thePetitioner herein during his Angioplasty. The bench reiterated:
"It is a settled legal position that the Governmentemployee during his lifetime or after his retirement is entitled to get thebenefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights.It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patientshould be treated vests only with the Doctor who is well versed and expert bothon academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left tothe patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailmentshould be treated."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s) v.Ravindra S. Shukla & 22 Other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 303
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that where anyprivate school is de-recognized, the District Educational Officer is requiredto take steps for declaring the eligible school staff as 'surplus' and absorbthem in other schools.
The clarification comes in light of a State policy thatwhenever the employees of private secondary school are required to beretrenched either due to the closure of classes or due to the closure ofschool, if they fulfill the criteria prescribed in the G.R.s then they are notrequired to face actual termination, but by declaring them surplus Governmentof Gujarat extends protection to their services and they are absorbed in anyother aided registered private secondary school.
Case Title: Pritiben Chhaganlal Kanjariaya v.State Of Gujarat & 4 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 304
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed byAnganwadi workers alleging that they were not promoted to the post of 'MukhyaSevika' on account of discrimination between those working at the DistrictPanchayat level and those working under the Municipal Corporation.
It was alleged that Anganwadi Workers from DistrictPanchayats were elevated to the aforesaid post while those from the MunicipalCorporation were deemed ineligible.
Case Title: Poonam Madha Parmar v. State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 305
The Gujarat High Court has held that the power of Court todirect further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC is available only upto "pre-trial stage" and once the trial commences, such power cannotbe exercised. Justice Ashokkumar Joshi also reiterated:
"It is trite principle of law that with a view to fillup the lacunae in investigation, such powers of directing further investigationcannot be exercised…"
Case Title: Raja Laxman Chopada v. AditayaBirala Nova Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 306
The Gujarat High Court has held that where the disengagementof workmen by an employer is under dispute, the former claiming illegaltermination and the latter asserting voluntary resignation arrangement, theLabour Court may direct deposit of ex-gratia amount in the interim.
Justice Biren Vaishnav thus upheld a LabourCourt's decision directing the workmen to deposit the ex-gratia amount untilfinal disposal of the dispute between the parties.
Case Title: Jerambhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli)Through Bhagwanjibhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli) v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 307
The Gujarat High Court expressed strong displeasure at thedetaining authority under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act,1985 for passing numerous detention orders "day in and day out" bymerely relying on "stale material" against a person.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeRajendra Sareen observed,
"Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannothave any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authoritycannot have recourse under the Act...without drawing distinction between"law and order" problem and "public order" problem asmentioned under the PASA Act."
Case Title: Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla v. StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 308
The Gujarat High Court directed the State authorities toreimburse the medical expenses for the pacemaker implantation undergone by aretired primary school teacher ('Petitioner'), observing that medicalreimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life.
The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav heldthat the Petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement under Gujarat CivilService (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015.
Case Title: Ambe Public School v. State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 309
The Gujarat High Court has recently cautioned the FeeRevisional Committee ('FRC') that it should keep in mind the fundamental rightsof the Self-Financed Schools under Article 19(1)(g) to run and charge fees asthey deem fit.
While the FRC must see that such fee does not amount toprofiteering by schools, it cannot 'sit in the chair of the Management' todetermine the fee structure because each school has its own unique method ofimparting education, Justice Bhargav Karia said.
Case Title: Savitaben Mangalbhai Parmar v. StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 310
The Gujarat High Court declined to exercise itsextraordinary writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking equal distribution ofcompensation as per Sec 31(2)(b) in the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice AravindKumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that thePetitioners alleging mischief on behalf of the State authorities should haveinitiated proceedings before appropriate forum when they first became aware ofthe mischief. However, the instant petition was filed a year later withoutcogent material or clear pleadings.
Case Title: Akil Valibhai Piplodwala v. CentralGovernment
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 311
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that civil courtshave no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question about citizenship ofa person and that the said question falls within the exclusive domain of theCentral government.
Justice Nisha Thakore held thus in context ofSection 9(2) of the Citizenship Act 1955 which provides that question whetherany citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country shall bedetermined by the prescribed authority.
Case Title: Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. & 1other(s) v. Presiding Officer & 2 Other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 312
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a person workingin "supervisory" capacity cannot raise an industrial dispute underthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje furthermade it clear that while deciding whether such person is a workman or not, theLabour Court ought to carefully consider the evidence placed on record andthere is no exhaustive list of work to differentiate between the workman andthe management employee.
Case Title: Shambhavi Kumari V/S SabarmatiUniversity & 3 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 313
The Gujarat High Court has declined to intervene in a writpetition seeking reinstatement with full backwages and benefits filed by anAssistant Professor against the Sabarmati University, a privateuniversity. Justice Bhargav Karia clarified that the disputeregarding termination was 'in the realm of a private contract' and therefore,held:
"…if at all there is an alleged arbitrary action on thepart of the respondent, the same would give cause to the petitioner to initiatecivil action before the Civil Court but in the facts of the present case, thewrit petition against the private educational institution governed by theGujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 would not be maintainable."
GujaratHigh Court Directs CBIC To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight
Case Title: M/s Louis Dreyfus Company IndiaPrivate Limited v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 314
The Gujarat High Court has directed theCentral Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to refund the IntegratedGoods and Service Tax (IGST) on ocean freight within six weeks along with thestatutory rate of interest.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria andJustice Bhargav D. Karia has relied on the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India inwhich GST on ocean freight was struck down.
Case Title: Santram Spinners Limited V/SBabubhai Magandas Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 315
The Gujarat High Court has struck down the order of theLabour Court which had held that the Respondent-workman was entitled toreinstatement along with 20% backwages in the Petitioner-institute. The HighCourt, after perusing, Form No. 16A which pertains to Tax Deducted at Source,concluded that the Respondent was being paid consultant fees and not a salary.The same had been ignored by the Labour Court.
Case Title: Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 316
The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a62-year-old, accused of sexuall assaulting a 17 years old after intoxicatingher.
The man was booked under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC andSections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
While granting relief, the High Court took into accountseveral factors such as improvement in Prosecutrix's version, subsequentconduct of the accused, etc.
Case Title: Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317
The Gujarat High Court has held that only a prima facieinvolvement of the accused in an alleged crime is required for framing ofcharges and the Court need not make an evaluation of evidence or record reasonsfor the same.
Justice Samir Dave referred to OmwatiVs. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 AAR 394 (SC) to reiterate thecircumstances in which the Court may discharge the Accused:
"(i) If upon consideration that there is no sufficientground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused forwhich he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons arerequired to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accusedpersons.
(ii) Where it is shown that the evidence which theprosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fullyaccepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defenceevidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alonethe Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter intometiculous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at thisstage."
Case Title: Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/SPgvcl Through The Deputy Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that occupiers of aland cannot be denied electricity connection only because a dispute regardingownership of the land is pending.
Justice AS Supehia referred to a division benchjudgment stating that right and title and ownership or right of occupancy hasno nexus with grant of electrical connection to a consumer.
Case Title: Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S ManagingDirector/ General Manager (Legal Cell)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319
The Gujarat High Court has held that an electricity companydoes not require the consent of a private landowner to lay overhead hightension transmission lines and that at most, such landowner may claim compensationfor any damage that may be sustained during the process.
A single Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav heavily relied on adivision bench judgment in Gujarat State Electricity TransmissionCorporation Ltd., Vs. Ratilal Maganji Brahmbhatt which held that:
"The Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment,with a specific purpose of providing electricity to a large number of people,across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development in allwalks of life. Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, thoughrecognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitutionof India, such right has to yield to the Articles 14 and 21 respectively of theConstitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals,enshrined in the basic structure of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Shambhubhai Devrajbhai Jaru V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 320
In a case involving custodial deaths of two persons due toalleged police brutality, the Gujarat High Court has declined bail to a GramRakshak Dal Jawan (GRD Jawan) discharging duties at the Police Station.
As per the investigation, the deceased were beaten withsticks, belts, fist and kicks, threatened with electric current, rags ofinflammable liquid were placed the on their bodies, and their genitals wereinjured with the mobile charger cable.
Case Title: Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/SGovindbhai M Prajapati
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 321
The Gujarat High Court has held that Motor Accident ClaimsTribunals may permit claimants, whose compensation is invested in fixeddeposits, to prematurely withdraw the same to meet the "exigencies oflife".
Justice Gita Gopi thus quashed the order of a Tribunal whichhad rejected the Petitioner's application for premature withdrawal of the FixedDeposit made in his favour in the Central Bank of India.
Case Title: Minalben Satishbhai Solanki V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 322
The Gujarat High Court has held that it is obligatory forthe investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint andseized properties upon expiry of the 45 days period specified under the GujaratMineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
In the absence of such an exercise, the seized vehicle willhave to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, withoutinsisting for bank guarantee.
Case Title: Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 323
The Gujarat High Court has come to the rescue of D.Pharmstudents who were denied registration as 'Pharmacist' by the State PharmacyCouncil on the ground that they have not undertaken training from medicalstores approved the the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.
A single bench of Justice AS Supehia notedthat the Pharmacy Council of India has not approved any medical store under theRegulation for the purpose of imparting practical training to the students ofDiploma in Pharmacy Course like the present petitioners.
Case Title: Idea Cellular Limited & 1 Other(S)V/S Union Of India Thro Director & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 324
The Gujarat High Court has asked the Central Government tosympathetically consider the case of Idea Cellular Limited which is unable tosubmit physical copies of Customers Activation Forms ('CAF') after the samewere destroyed in a fire at its warehouse in 2011.
Justice AS Supehia observed:
"It is clarified that since the petitioners are nothaving original physical copy of such forms, if they are called upon to comparethe scanned copy with the physical forms, the same would be an utterlyimpossible task and cannot be performed and hence, the respondents shall acceptthe scanned copy of such CAFs having digitally signed by the petitioners."
Case Title: Dipakkumar Nathabhai Patel V/SNarmadaben Dhirajlal Radadia & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 325
The Gujarat High Court has held that a party cannot beallowed to seek appointment of arbitrator over a "dead" cause ofaction or to revive a claim which is barred by the Law of Limitation.
"Normally the issue of limitation being question offact/s and the Law governing the same would be procedural, it would always beopen for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide based on the facts that may beunfolded in a given case. However, this Court exercising the power of referringthe dispute to arbitration, would refuse to do so when it is manifest thatclaims are ex-facie time barred and dead or there is no subsistingdispute," Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed.
Case Title: Jayesh Manharlal Gandhi V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 326
The Gujarat High Court handed over the custody of an old andailing couple to their younger son in a habeas corpus petition filed by thelatter alleging mis-treatment and illegal detention of his parents by his elderbrother, the Respondent.
A division bench of Justices Vipul Pancholi andSandeep Bhatt expressed shock at the Respondent's conduct in chambers,labelling his mother as a "villain".
Case Title: Chief Executive & 1 Other(S) V/SVanjibhai Laljibhai Chaudhary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 327
The Gujarat High Court held that termination of servicebecause of non-extension of probation does not amount to 'retrenchment' underSection 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Consequently, Justice Biren Vaishnav setaside an order of the Labour Court reinstating the Respondent-workman to theposition of a 'Community-Organiser-Cum-Trainee' in the Petitioner-Trust.
"Viewed from the definition of "retrenchment"defining Section 2 (oo) (bb), the `term' excludes termination of service of aworkman as a result of nonrenewal of a contract of the employment ortermination on expiry in view of a stipulation as contained in the ordertherein."
Case Title: Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Pagi V/SDeputy Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 328
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that once a LabourCourt comes to the conclusion that Sections 25F, G and H of the IndustrialDisputes Act have been violated, reinstatement of workman ought to follow.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav washearing several petitions challenging the Labour Court's order whereincompensation of Rs. 72,000 was awarded to each of the Petitioner-workmen ratherthan reinstatement with backwages.
Case Title: X v/s Indext/C Industrial ExtensionCottage & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 329
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when there is aspecific condition provided in the consent letter of employment that theappointment is on contract basis, then such workman cannot claim any benefit bycontending that the Respondent establishment had breached Section 25(F) of theIndustrial Disputes Act.
The Petitioner, claiming to be sexually harassed by herimmediate superior, was agitating an order of the Labour Court by averring thatthe Labour Court should have held that the contractual appointment was a mere'camouflage' and she was entitled to retrenchment compensation.
Case Title: Shaileshbhai Kandubhai Rathwa V/S GurjarShankarlal Devalal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 330
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that children who arevictims of motor accidents stand on a different footing from non-earning adultsin matter of compensation.
Recalling the Supreme Court's observations in Mallikarjunv/s Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, the Benchcomprising Justice Gita Gopi added that compensation awarded should enable thechild to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to someextent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability.
Case title: M/S Harsh Transport Private V/SUnion Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 331
The Gujarat High Court has held that Railway Claims Tribunalis competent to adjudicate disputes regarding freight for carriage of goods andany dispute with regard to the same, including imposition of punitive charges.
The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia while hearinga writ petition raising a dispute with regard to freight charge demanded by theRailways from the petitioner between two stations. It was the case of thepetitioner that it has paid regular freight charges to the Railway and the samewere also accepted, and later on an extra freight charge was created.
Case Title: Dhavalkumar Ashokbhai Aghera v/sReliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 332
The Gujarat High Court has permitted the prematurewithdrawal of Fixed Deposit Receipt of the compensation awarded in MotorAccidents Claims to an Air Force person who intended to purchase a house forhis permanent residence. Justice Gita Gopi stated:
"The deposited money are of the claimants. Theliterates can prudently exercise discretion, manage their funds and canindividually decide about systematic planning for investing the money...In caseof literate person, the Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adoptingpedantic approach of investing the money in long term FDR without recordingreasons for investing the money in long term deposits."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus BalvantsinhAmarsinh Raj
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 333
The Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of a man underSection 135 of the Electricity Act for alleged unlicensed connection has madeit clear that ownership/ possession of the property in question has to befactored into consideration.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi rejected the State's appeal onseveral grounds, including the fact that the Police did not call for anycertificate or documents to show the possession or ownership of accused for theso-called place of occurrence.
Case Title: Rekhaben Shashikant Gade V/S StateOf Gujarat & 4 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 334
The Gujarat High Court has emphasised that Chapter VIII ofthe Land Acquisition Act has prescribed the establishment of the LandAcquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority which is 'couched withappropriate powers' to examine the issues which may arise in the process ofland acquisition and compensation distribution.
Accordingly, the Bench comprising Chief JusticeAravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri refusedto entertain the writ petition moved by a woman seeking compensation for aproperty, purportedly owned by her at the time, acquired by the government forits 'Bullet Train Project'.
Case Title: KumanbhaiChatrabhjubhaihujbhadaraniya & 18 other(s) v/s Manavadar Municipality &14 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 335
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that merely because ofsome benefit has accrued to the litigant because of operation of interimorders, the litigant cannot claim such benefits when the litigation finallyends against them.
Considering this well-settled principle of law, JusticeBiren Vaishnav declined to entertain a second appeal challenging theorder of the Appellate Court in order to seek reinstatement in the MunicipalCorporation. Justice Vaishnav upheld the order of the Trial Court and the FirstAppellate Court by affirming:
"What is therefore evident is that no fault can be foundinasmuch as the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed no errorin holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suitunder section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the face of the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act,1947."
Case Title: Pruthvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadejav/s State Of Gujarat & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 336
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a lawyer who doesnot appear and plead before courts cannot designate himself as an"Advocate" even if he is enrolled with the Bar Council.
It added that as per the Advocates Act and the Bar CouncilRules, once the terms of employment do not require an advocate to plead andappear before the Courts, then during this period of employment, a personcannot be termed as an 'Advocate' because he is not practising as one.
Case Title: Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 337
The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not open for theCourt to undertake the task of ascertaining the correctness of examinationanswer keys and the same must be left to the discretion of field experts.
"Whichever option is chosen, there will be somecandidates who are likely to suffer," Justice Biren Vaishnav saidwhile rejecting a petition assailing the correctness of the answer keys ofexaminations held for the posts of Lok Rakshaks (Class-III). The Single JudgeBench reiterated:
"…when there are conflicting views, judges are notexpected to act as experts in the fields and overstep."
Case Title: Pragnesh Harshadbhai Patel @ P.G. @Pragnesh Gota v/s State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a man accused ofparticipating in gang-rape of the prosecutrix, after noting that the latter wason very friendly terms with the accused and even after levelling such graveallegations, she had been travelling with him and had been enjoying hishospitality.
Justice Rajendra Sareen observed,
"The facts narrated hereinabove prima facie reveal thatthe first informant was on very friendly terms with the applicant. It alsoappears that allegation of rape appears to be unjustified, since all the whilethe first informant, had been enjoying the hospitality of the applicant andother accused, as the case may be, and there does not appear to be anyjustification for the first informant in continuously accepting the hospitalityof the accused, when according to the first informant, she was being subjectedto such a heinous crime."
Case Title: Jaferkhan Allarakabhai RadhanpuriV/S Dholka Nagar Palika
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 339
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that merely because awrong provision is quoted by the authority for exercising its power, it wouldnot invalidate the order if it is shown that such an order could otherwise bepassed under other provisions of the statute.
Accordingly, Justice AS Supehia declined toquash an order of eviction against the writ petitioner by holding:
"The petitioner has no right to keep on occupying theproperty of the respondent Nagarpalika even after the demise of his father, towhom the property was given on rent for 11 months in the year 1971. Theprovisions of the Eviction Act has been precisely invoked in the case of thepetitioner and hence, no interference by this Court is necessitated."
GujaratHigh Court Grants Bail To Person Alleged Of Creating Fictitious Entity To PassIneligible ITC
Citation: Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 340
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail toa person alleged to have created a fictitious entity to pass an ineligibleInput Tax Credit (ITC).
The single bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora has directed therelease of the applicant on bail, subjected to a deposition of Rs. 2 crorebefore the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division 8,Enforcement, Surat within a period of 2 months from the applicant's release.
Case Title: Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/OJayprakash Nareshkumar Joshi V/S Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341
The Gujarat High Court declined custody of a minor son tohis mother on the ground that her work schedule did not permit her to take careof the child as compared to the work schedule of the father.
Further, Justice Umesh Trivedi, while applyingthe principle of paramount interest of child, opined that the Appellant-motherhad a step-mother and it was doubtful whether she would take care of the minorson.
Case Title: Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342
The Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings for the offenceof dowry harassment against a distant relative of the complainant's husband,observing that no specific incidents were alleged in the entire FIR and theallegation against him was purely "general in nature".
"Considering the fact that the applicant happens to bethe distant relative of the husband of the complainant, it seems that theimpugned order is nothing but an attempt to falsely implicate the applicant asaccused just with a view to harass the applicant. The allegation against theapplicant is purely of general in nature and considering the fact that theapplicant stays at a different place, the registration of impugned FIR againstthe applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law," JusticeNirzar Desai said.
ImpoundingOf Instrument Sine Qua Non For Imposing Duty Under Bombay Stamp Act: GujaratHigh Court
Case Title: Century Tiles Through Director GanpatbhaiDahyabhai Patel V/S The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that only after aninstrument is lawfully impounded that the jurisdiction would vest in Stampauthorities to proceed under Section 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act for thepurpose of charging document and assessing the same for stamp duty.
Justice AS Supehia, while relying on TataTele Services Limited Vs State of Gujarat, reiterated:
"Impounding of the instrument is sine qua non forexercise of the powers."
Case Title: Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. VinodkumarBhanabhai Parmar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344
The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation granted bythe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the kin of a deceased victim, who wasearning in foreign currency prior to his death.
The Bench comprising Justices AJ Desai and MaunaBhatt relied on Supreme Court's decision in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 281] whereit was held:
"Where there is so much of disparity in the economicconditions and affluence of the two places viz. The place to which the victimbelongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balancemust be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne."
Case Title: Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the decision of theSessions Court rejecting the complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached the courtwith 'clean hands' and was accused of theft of electricity.
Justice Samir Dave opined:
"It is settled law that the revisional powers of theHigh Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law andto secure the ends of justice. The process of law can be invoked by aprincipled and really aggrieved person who approaches the court with cleanhands."
It added,
"The process of law cannot be allowed to be abused by aperson who is facing trial for theft of Electricity and who himself avers suchfacts in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as indicate that he isguilty of committing theft of Electricity; by making baseless allegationsagainst the officials of a PGVCL without any supporting material or evidence.Apparently, the revisionist has filed that complaint in order to put a counterpressure on the officials for taking undue advantage in plural cases of theftof electricity lodged against the complainant."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S PratapPrabhuram Devasi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 346
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of anaccused under the POCSO Act on the ground that the victim's allegations wereunreliable and contained several omissions and contradictions.
While dismissing the State's appeal, a bench of JusticeSH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen noted that at the time of allegedincident, both brothers of the prosecutrix were at home but, she did not shoutfor help. "Not only that, she did not disclose to any of her relatives,who came at her home despite she was asked."
Case Title: Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8Other(S) V/S Registrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347
The Gujarat High Court, while exercising its extraordinaryjurisdiction, has held that the show cause notice issued by the Registrar,Cooperative Societies under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Actis not maintainable against the writ applicants on grounds of delay.
The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati notedthat the writ-applicants were Chairman/ Managing Directors in the AnkleshwarNagrik Sahakari Bank Limited in 2004. Since then, the Bank came to be closedand liquidated in November 2004 and all the relevant transactions pertained toa period before 2004. The impugned show cause notice was issued in July 2011for transactions older than five years. Accordingly, the Single Judge Benchopined:
"The show cause notice which came to be issued by therespondent authority is also an undisputedly dated 26.07.2011. Therefore, allthe transaction alleged against the writ applicants are beyond the period offive years from the date of show cause notice i.e. 26.07.2011 and also from thedate of inquiry report i.e. dated 07.06.2011."
Case Title: Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 348
The Gujarat High Court has held that a licensing authorityunder the Arms Act cannot discriminate between two persons, who were co-accusedin the same matter, by renewing the license of one of them and refusing thesame treatment to the other citing criminal antecedents.
Justice AS Supehia held so while deciding thecase of a Petitioner whose renewal application under the Act was declinedciting criminal offence registered against him under Sections 323, 294B, 506(1)and 114 of IPC.
Case Title: Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 349
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that a personapprehending arrest can seek "transit anticipatory bail" so as toobtain time to approach the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction inthe matter, even in the absence of registration of FIR.
A transit bail is a bail granted by a Court not havingjurisdiction over the place where offence was committed. A "transitanticipatory bail" therefore is when a person is apprehending arrest bypolice of a State other than the State where he/she is presently situated. Asthe word "transit" suggests, it is an act of being moved or carriedfrom one place to another.
Case Title: Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/SAashish Harjibhai Madhapariya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350
The Gujarat High Court has recently reiterated that theCourt must confine itself in contempt jurisdiction to the four corners of theorder alleged to have been disobeyed. It cannot travel beyond the order allegedto have been flouted.
Further, to determine whether an act is contumacious, theCourts cannot apply a 'mechanical' mind and should determine whether 'positive'steps were taken to show wilful disobedience of a judicial order.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice AshutoshShastri stated:
"…while dealing with the contempt petition, the Courtis not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgmentwhich was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with morevigour when disputed questions of facts have arisen and the documents producedare true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication ought to have beentaken up for adjudication…"
Case Title: Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/SSuperintendent
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has held that thebenefits of reinstatement would be a 'normal course' that ought to follow oncethere is a violative of Section 25(F) under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Keeping in view this principle, the High Court reinstated,without backwages, the Petitioner who working as a 'sweeper' under the Statefor 6 years. The Labour Court's award only granting lumpsum compensation to thetune of Rs. 54,000 as was modified to that extent. Justice BirenVaishnav stated:
"Having therefore found that the Labour Court havingpositively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no faultof the petitioner, the Labour Court proceedings having been prolonged at theinstance of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been then deprivedof the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to havebeen followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved."
Case Title: Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S MancharamDwarkadas Sadhu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352
The Gujarat High Court, while reiterating that the statementof a witness recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of CrPCdoes not fall within the ambit of evidence, has upheld the acquittal of aMurder accused.
The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and RajendraSareen explained in the context of the statement recorded by theinvestigating officer:
"Such evidence is only for confrontation in the crossexamination. Statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure being wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be takeninto account. As per the settled proposition of law, statement recorded undersection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only to prove thecontradictions and/or omissions."
Case Title: Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353
The Gujarat High Court has allowed 6 bail pleas filed by 8persons accused of forcing tribals from Amod town in Gujarat's Bharuch districtto convert their religion, upon a prima facie finding that there is no materialto conclusively prove that the conversion was caused by the use of force.
"While there is existence of material suggestingallurement, there does not appear to be existence of any material which wouldsuggest conversion by use of force."
Case Title: Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has affirmed thatwhen a person is transferred on his own request, his past service is countedwhile granting promotion or higher pay scale, particularly when the samedepartment is involved.
Thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav allowed thepetition of workmen who were challenging a resolution of 2017 passed by theFinance Department stating that incumbents who had worked for five years wouldbe considered for seniority, promotion, higher pay and terminal benefits fromthe initial date of engagement but not from the date of regularisation as wasthe case of the Petitioner. The bench reiterated:
"In the case before the Supreme Court and of theDivision Bench of this Court, the Court held that if the petitioners weretransferred to a new department, they may not get seniority but the pastexperience would count for the purposes of promotion and higher pay scaleetc."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v/s ThakoreChamanji Motiji & 3 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order acquitting fourpersons accused in a Murder case on the ground that there are several materialcontradictions in the versions presented by the main witnesses and the weaponrecovered did not have blood stains to establish the commission of the offence.
A bench of Justices SH Vora and RajendraSareen further noted that all witnesses were related to each other andcould not deemed as 'independent witnesses.' They had prior enmity with theAccused and were interested in getting them convicted. Thus, it was concluded:
"The evidence of all the main witnesses iscontradictory to each other, which is rightly disbelieved by the learnedSessions Judge. As a result, the judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge issound on the aspect of law and facts. The evidence brought on record by theprosecution before the trial court has been rightly appreciated by the trialcourt. No apparent error on the face of the record is found from thejudgement."
Case Title: Patel Bhaveshkumar ChandrakantbhaiV/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356
The Gujarat High Court has held that commission ofinfraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not besufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusionthat there is no alternate but to preventively detain an accused.
The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and RajendraSareen held:
"No doubt, neither the possibility of launching of acriminal proceedings nor pendency of any criminal proceedings is an absolutebar to an order of preventive detention. But, failure of the detainingauthority to consider the possibility of either launching or pendency ofcriminal proceedings may, in the circumstances of a case, lead to the conclusionsthat the the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the vital questionwhether it was necessary to make an order of preventive detention."
Case Title: Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357
The Gujarat High Court has held that the relief of specificperformance under Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act is no longerdiscretionary, with notification of the 2018 Amendment Act.
Whereas the unamended Section 20 stipulated that the specificrelief "may" be granted at the discretion of the court, the amendingAct substitutes Section 20 and renders the specific relief as regular statutoryremedy.
Case Title: Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that offences underSections 218 and 219 of the IPC which pertain to a public servant framingincorrect records for saving a person from punishment and making reports in acorrupt manner, cannot be invoked without initiation of inquiry or in absenceof any evidence.
In the event that these provisions are wrongly invoked suchthat they would adversely affect and prejudice the career of the publicservant, the High Court can expunge the relevant parts from the judicial orderof the Magistrate.
Case Title: Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S TheCentral Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359
The Gujarat High Court, while declining to exercise its writjurisdiction at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of theSARFAESI Act, has held that adjudication of matter would have to wait till thestage of Section 13(4) was reached. Thereafter, the aggrieved person can file asecuritisation appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DebtRecovery Tribunal.
Section 13(2) of the Act refers to the issuance of notice tothe borrower for discharging his liabilities within 60 days in case of defaultin payment of debt. While Section 13(4) pertains to declaring the accounts ofthe borrower as an NPA and thereafter, taking possession of secured assets andappointing a person to manage such assets.
Case Title: Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S KetanChandravadan Soni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360
The Gujarat High Court refused to initiate contemptproceedings against a party to property dispute, said to have wilfullydisobeyed court's status quo order by making an application for before theconcerned Revenue Authority for mutation of the entry in the revenue record, onthe basis of the registered Sale Deed.
The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi and Justice APThaker was of the view that such an application does not breach status quo withregard to the title and the encumbrance of the suit property, in any manner. Itsaid,
"Opponent has neither got the Suit property transferrednor is there any encumbrance created...Just because the opponent made anapplication for entering her name in the revenue record, it cannot be said thatthere is willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court."
Case Title: Bank Of Baroda V/S HarshadgiriChanchalgiri Goswami
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed that a 'permanentpart-time' employee is entitled to grant of pension in terms of Dena Bank(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai and JusticeMauna Bhatt thus upheld the single bench order directing grant ofpension to a part-time cleaner, who had voluntarily retired from service.
Case Title: Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362
The Gujarat High Court has clarified in respect of Section306 of IPC that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intendingthe consequences to actually follow cannot amount to 'instigation.'
Therefore, if in the instant case, the Accused/Applicant haduttered 'you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die',then it would not constitute instigation as u/s 306.
These observations were made in connection with a Section482 application challenging the FIR against the Accused for offences u/s 306and 114 of IPC.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/sMeraman Dana Harijan & 6 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363
The Gujarat High Court has held that liability cannot befastened upon the insurance company under Section 147 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 if the motor accident victim was travelling in a goods vehicle andsuch accident took place prior to the 1994 Amendment Act. JusticeHemant Pracchak explained:
"…the present appellant insurance company is exoneratedfrom the liability fasten upon it as the deceased was travelling in goodsvehicle and it is clearly breach of the policy and therefore, the insurancecompany is not held liable…Considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble ApexCourt and considering the fact that the date of accident is of 9.1.1994 i.e.prior to the date of amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act whichhas come into force in November 1994 and therefore, the present appeal deservesto be allowed."
Case Title: Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 364
The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of 'prematureretirement' become stigmatic if such order contains statements indicatingmisconduct or lack of integrity.
"Where orders have been passed which indicate blemish,disgrace, disrespute etc., and in that context if an order of termination or ofcompulsory retirement is seen, the same would amount to stigma by virtue of astatement made in the order."
B.Ed.Not "Bachelor Degree" Of Graduation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/sChairman & 31 others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365
The Gujarat High Court has held that a B.Ed. Degree, i.e.,Bachelor of Education, is not a Bachelor Degree of graduationsince the said course, like 3-yrs-LLB course, can be perused only after one hasgraduated in any of the branches of arts or science.
In the same breath, the Court held that persons possessing aB.Ed. degree are over-qualified for positions having minimum prescribedqualification of Graduation and thus, rejection of their candidature for havingmore qualifications cannot be held to be bad in law.
Case Title: Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 366
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted bail to a 70years old woman, having a two month old infant, for commission of offences u/s406, 420, 114, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of theInformation Technology Act and Sections 14, 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act.
The primary allegations against the Applicant as per the FIRand the charge sheet was that she had introduced herself as a Customs Officerand had asked the Complainant to deposit INR 3.87 lacs in the bank account ofanother person, so as to aid the main accused. Thereafter, the Applicant hadwithdrawn the said amount and handed it over to the main accused. In lieu, shereceived INR 50,000. The APP opposed grant of bail basis the gravity of theoffence.
Case title - Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh ActionCommittee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala MohammedHammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a pleachallenging the decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to closedown its sole slaughterhouse in the city on the occasion of a Jain festival.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observedthat the order of the AMC was applicable only for two days and that it was areasonable restriction and did not violate the fundamental rights of thecitizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and therefore,the matter being meritless, was liable to be dismissed.
Case title - Gulamhusen Dadamiya Pir VersusUnion Of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 368
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed anorder of the passport authorities impounding the passport of one, GulamhusenDadamiya Pir on the ground that he was engaged in some anti-nationalactivities.
It is interesting to note that the passport of thepetitioner was not impounded by invoking the provisions of Section10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, which refers to the impounding of apassport, if the holder of such passport is involved in any activities, whichis against the interest of the sovereignty, integrity and the security ofIndia.
Case Title: Patel Rameshchandra Mangaldas V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 369
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the onus ofperforming due diligence with respect to a property before entering into anytransaction is on the intending purchaser.
The observation was made while deciding the anticipatorybail application moved by one such property purchaser, who was booked forCheating under IPC, for purchasing the subject property on the basis of a fraudpower of attorney.
Case Title: Vithal Bogra Shetty V/S Board OfTrustees
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 370
The Gujarat High Court has distinguished between the rightof an 'intra-court appeal' under Article 226 and Article 227 of theConstitution and held that an intra-court appeal does not lie against thejudgement of a Single Judge when the power of superintendence is exercised byexamining the subordinate court's order.
In other words, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, doesnot permit an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge of the Court inan Art 227 petition.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice AshutoshJoshi stated:
"Where a petition is filed both under Article 226and 227 of the Constitution of India, it will have to be considered whether thepoint raised in the petition arose for adjudication for the first time beforethe High Court. If the challenge in the petition is with respect to the pointsalready adjudicated upon by the subordinate court or tribunal, then it willhave to be held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court was invokedand not the original jurisdiction."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S RajeshbhaiRamubhai Patel & 5 other(s)
Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 371
The Gujarat High Court, while dismissing an appeal againstacquittal in a caste-based crime, reiterated that the Appellate Court has alimited scope of interfering with acquittal appeals since prejudice lies infavour of the Accused. Further, the Appellate Court can only interfere with theorder of the Trial Court provided the order was manifestly unjust, perverse orcontrary to law.
In the instant case, Justice AC Joshi observedthat there were several contradictions and omissions in the statement of theProsecution Witnesses and notably, the complaint was registered only after 11days for which there was no explanation. Additionally, the alleged incident hadoccurred with 3 persons and yet the complaint was lodged against 6 persons. Allthese circumtsances were factored in by the trial Court. Hence, it wasclarified:
"Appellate Court has full power to review,reappreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal isfounded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case ofacquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, thepresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle ofcriminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocentunless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accusedhaving secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is furtherreaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."
Case Title: Sharda Chimanbhai Lalbhai V/S DineshMohanbhai Prajapati
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 372
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely because anemployee appointed to Class-IV post is handed over additional duties withrespect to a higher post for a temporary period, may be during the leavevacancy of actual employee, cannot demand entire salary differential.
The Court took into account the differential aspect ofappointment in Class-IV and Class-III category and concluded that merelybecause the petitioner, a Class-IV workman was doing additional work ofClass-III category, it did not imply that he will be entitled to the pay-scaleof Class-III post.
GujaratEducational Institutions Services Tribunal Can Direct Execution Of Its Orders:High Court
Case Title: Gharshala Sanstha v/s JayshribenGhanshyamlal Bhatt & 5 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 373
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has confirmed thatwhile deciding applications u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 fornon-compliance of the order, the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services haspowers under Clause 14 of the Guj. Primary Education Tribunal (Procedure)Order, 1987 to direct the execution of its orders.
However, Justice Bhargav Karia explainedthat the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. In light of this, theSingle Judge Bench held that the Tribunal was correct in enforcing thecompromise arrived at by both the Petitioner Trust and the Teachers to pay thepay-scales in accordance with Clause 2 of the terms of the compromise.
Case Title: Ajaysinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 374
The Gujarat High Court has clarified in the context of theGujarat Mining Rules, 2017 that the investigator must approach the SessionsCourt with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Courton the expiry of the specified time period. Failure to do this exercise, wouldresult in the frustration of seizure and bank guarantee. Consequently, theseized property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom itwas seized without bank guarantee.
Case title – Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State ofGujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 375
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PublicInterest Litigation (PIL) plea by Tushar Gandhi, thegreat-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, challenging the Gujaratgovernment's decision to revamp/redevelop the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad atthe estimated cost of ₹1,200-crore.
The bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and JusticeAshutosh J. Shastri observed that the proposed project would promotethe ideas and philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and it would be beneficial formankind at large and that the revamped Gandhi Aashram would be a place forlearning for mankind of all age groups.
Case Title: Shivpal Singh Chaudhari V/S CentralBureau Of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 376
The Gujarat High Court has declined anticipatory bail to theManaging Directors of two private companies, accused of bribing a "verysenior officer" of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
The Bench comprising Justice Nikhil Kariel observedthat grant of anticipatory bail may impact a large number of people, moreparticularly since the accused allegedly bribed the incharge of an organizationwhich has a "very serious responsibility" of building and maintainingimportant highways within the State.
Case Title: Sanjay Bhulabhai Patel V/S PankajVinodkumar Patni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 377
The Bench comprising Justice Nisha Thakore atthe Gujarat High Court has held that in a suit where counter claim is filed,the suit and the counterclaim are required to be treated as unifiedproceedings. This unification of the proceedings forms the basis of filing ofappeal.
The High Court has further explained that the term 'plaint'provided u/s 2(c) of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004 also includes'counterclaim.' Even as per Order VIII Rule 6A(4) of the Code, counterclaim hasto be treated as a plaint for all purposes. Therefore, once the suit and thecounterclaim are treated as 'unified proceedings' and the same involves two ormore distinct cause of action, the aggregate valuation of the plaint and thecounterclaim shall be considered for the purpose of determination pecuniaryjurisdiction, Justice Thakore explained.
Case Title: Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Applicant-Accused'sparticipation in an agitation against the Municipality for certain drainageissues and the alleged offence committed by him u/s 3 of the Damage to PublicProperty Act, cannot be deemed to be an act of organised crime syndicate.
Case Title: M/S. Shree Shivam CorporationThrough Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s CompetitionCommission of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379
The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of inquiryunder Section 26 of the Competition Act is only a prima facie opinion and doesnot affect the rights of any person. Thus, it held that such an order cannot bereviewed by the High Court unless and until it is shown that it is contrary tothe provisions of the Act or the order has included irrelevant material or notincluded relevant material.
Justice AP Thaker further held that at the stageof passing any order for inquiry, no right of the person concerned is breachedand such person cannot claim as of right of being hearing be provided to him atthat stage.
Case Title: Inner Vision Education AndCharitable Trust V/S Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380
The Gujarat High Court has held that a 'No ObjectionCertificate' as well as Consent of Affiliation are mandatory at the time ofmaking an application under the National Commission for Indian System ofMedicine Act, 2020 in order for a Trust to open a new Medical College. JusticeAniruddha Mayee stated:
"Therefore, the submission of No ObjectionCertificate as well as Consent of Affiliation was mandatory as per the list ofenclosures and the applicant had to submit the same along with the applicationform. Admittedly in the present case at the time of submitting the application onthe last date of submission i.e. 31.10.2021, the petitioners herein have notsubmitted the said two documents."
Case Title: Sonalben Alias Charmiben HirenbhaiJivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381
The Gujarat High Court has held that anincome tax return (ITR) filed prior to the death of the assessee is the basisfor computation of loss of future income, including future prospects.
The single bench of Justice Gita Gopi has observed that boththe parents are dependents of the deceased son and are entitled to apply forcompensation. Both the parents are entitled to the compensation amount underthe head of dependency loss.
Case Title: Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S BatulAbbasbhai Rangwala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382
The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not necessaryunder Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses RatesControl Act, 1947 that all joint tenants must find alternative accommodation sothat landlord can recover possession of rented premises.
Justice AS Supehia observed,
"The landlord shall be entitled to recoverpossession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, aftercoming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of orbeen allotted a suitable residence and an eviction petition against one of thejoint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenantsare bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancyand is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. If these personsbecome tenants in common or joint tenants, it is not the requirement of the lawthat all the tenants should have built accommodation for their residence."
Case Title: Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S IndianPetrochemicals Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated the position of lawthat once the employees have accepted the benefits under Voluntary RetirementScheme, it is not open for the employees to challenge the scheme.
They can also not contend after having withdrawn the amount,that they should be permitted to continue with their employment services, itadded.
Reiterating this principle, Justice BirenVaishnav declined to interfere with the award of the Labour Courtwherein the Court had found that the employees had withdrawn their applicationsfor VRS after their applications were accepted by the employer and the amountswere paid to them.
Case Title: Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/SJaydeepsinh K Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384
The Gujarat High Court declined to entertain a contemptpetition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with theApex Court's decision in Lalita Kumar v/s State of UP, for prompt registrationof FIR on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence.
A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and JusticeAshutosh Shastri observed:
"Having found a substantive compliant has beenlodged not only against the respondent, but also against the Police Officer whowas incharge and one another co-accused and as such, it appears that thegrievance of the applicant is taken care of by initiating steps by filingsubstantive complaint and as such, the applicant has not remained remediless."
Case Title: Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai HaribhaiSojitra V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385
The Gujarat High Court has explained that when a person useswithout the permission of the license owner or the Registrar, any product, itamounts to an infringement of copyright as under Section 51 of the Act.However, when the person is holding a certificate issued by the Registrar ofCopyright, no infringement is committed.
The Bench comprising Justice Niral Mehta washearing an application challenging the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2. It wasaverred that the FIR was an 'abuse of process of law' and filed with a view tooust the Applicant from the business. Further, u/s 51, if any person without alicense granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar does anything,it would amount to a infringement. However, in the instant case, the Applicanthad been issued certificates by the Registrar of Copyright and therefore,according to him, there was no infringement. Additionally, the police officers hadinvoked Section 64 of the Copyright Act to seize the material in question. Perthe Applicant, this was a 'sheer non-application of mind.'
Case Title: KAMUBEN SOMAJI BHAVAJI THAKORE v/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 386
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that where the offenceis punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven yearsor which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine, Policeofficers must not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate must notauthorise detention casually and mechanically.
The Bench comprising Justice AC Joshi refused to cancel thebail granted to the Respondents accused of offences u/s 406, 420 and 120-B ofIPC for which maximum punishment was for 7 years. Additionally, the SingleJudge Bench noted that the Respondents had not breached any bail conditions.
GujaratHooch Tragedy: High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Amos MD, 3 Directors
Case Title: CHANDUBHAI FAKIRBHAI PATEL v/s STATEOF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 387
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to fourDirectors and an employee of the Amos Corporation which is embroiled in theHooch Tragedy of July 2022.
600 litres of methyl alcohol was allegedly stolen from thecompany by one of its authorized personnel Jayesh Khavadiya and was eventuallysupplied to bootleggers. The spurious country made liquor had claimed 46 livesand injured 82.
Case title - Anjuman ANoor A Do Jahan Eid E Milad vs. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 388
While hearing two pleas challenging the State police's'inaction' to decide the applications filed by Ahmedabad-basedcommittees/banners to take out Eid-e-Milad processions, the Gujarat High Courttoday remarked that what is important is that the festivals are allowed to becelebrated, and it is immaterial under whose banner the same are beingcelebrated.
"The purpose is that celebrations must take placebut at the same time, peace and harmony should not be affected...There must bepermission (to celebrate festival) to some trust, at the same time, noteveryone can be permitted whosoever seeks permission (to celebrate festival),"the bench of Justice Nirzar Desai remarked.
Case title - TusharKarsanbhai Vinzubhai v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd. [LETTERS PATENT APPEALNO. 331 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 389
The Gujarat High Court denied relief to acandidate who was treated as ineligible for the post ofElectrical Assistant (in a government power company), on the ground that he issuffering from colour blindness.
The division bench of Justice N. V. Anjaria andJustice Mauna M. Bhatt dismissed the appeal filed by the candidatechallenging the Single Judge order upholding the official authorities' decisionto declare him unfit for the job on the ground of his colour blindness.
Case Title: SaumilHetalkumar Shah v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 390
The Gujarat High Court, while dealing with two writpetitions, held the notification amending the eligibility criteria forparticipating in the admission process of various postgraduate medical courseswithin the State, to be constitutionally valid.
The petitioners, who were qualified NEET PG candidatesseeking admission to postgraduate medical courses, filed the petitionchallenging the validity of the amended eligibility criteria of admission aswell as the validity of the notification which amended the eligibility criteriaprescribed for admission to the MD/MS/Diploma/CPS and MDS courses.
Case Title: AhmedabadSunni Muslim Waqf Committee v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 391
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday directed the Ahmedabad MunicipalCorporation to decide a representation made by the Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim WaqfCommittee against its agenda changing the name of a residential locality of theWaqf from "Afzal Khan no Tekro" to "Shivaji no Tekro".
It is the case of the petitioner that the Resolution waspassed by considering the representations of persons who were admittedly'encroachers' on their property and that the said Resolution was passed withoutthe issuance of any notice, nor informing or giving an opportunity of hearing tothe Waqf, nor consulting the Gujarat State Waqf Board, which was the statutoryauthority in this regard.
Case title - JAVED ALIASTHAKELI ALIAS CHOR AJIJKHAN PATHAN v. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 392
In a significant order, the Gujarat High Court hasdirected the State's Inspector General of Police (Prisons) toissue necessary instructions to all Jail authorities in the State to forwardapplications preferred by prisoners/convicts through jails to the HighCourt within 48 hours as it noted that the same effects andviolates the Fundamental Rights of such prisoners.
The bench of Justice Samir J. Dave has alsodirected the Court's registry to list all such applications received from theJail authority on Board preferably within 48 hours from thetime of its receipt. The Court further added that if it is not possible tonotify the matter in the Regular Board, then the same be notified in the Per CourtBoard or Special Board / Separate Board.
"It is expected from the jail authority that as andwhen any application is received from any prisoner/convict through jail, thesame be forwarded to the High Court, along with necessary remarks, preferablywithin a period of 48 hours. It is also expected from the High Court Registrythat all applications received from the Jail authority are listed on Boardpreferably within 48 hours from the time of its receipt and if it is notpossible to notify the matter in the Regular Board, then the same be notifiedin the Per Court Board or Special Board / Separate Board," the Court'sorder reads.
Case Title: ManyataAvinash Dolani v. State of Gujarat and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 393
The Gujarat High Court, while dealing with a plea filed bythe mother of a minor child, recently held that the habeas corpus petition ismaintainable even in matters of child custody, provided that detention of theminor child by the other parent or others is proved to be illegal and withoutany authority of law.
The court made the observation while relying upon SupremeCourt's observations in Tejaswini Gaud and Others v. Shekhar JagdishPrasad Tewari and Others
GujaratHigh Court Quashes State's First FIR Filed Under 'Anti-Love Jihad' Law
Case title - SAMIR @ SEMS/O ABDULBHAI QURESHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT [CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATIONNO. 18325 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 394
The Gujarat High Court quashed the first FIRregistered by the Gujarat Police under the state's 'anti-love jihad' law afterthe husband and wife settled the matter among themselves.
"...this Court is of the considered view thatfurther continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugnedFIR would be nothing but unnecessary harassment to the parties and trialthereon would be futile and further continuation of the proceedings wouldamount to an abuse of process of law," observed the bench of JusticeNiral R. Mehta as it quashed and set aside all the proceedings arisingout of the FIR.
Case Title: Hemlata Jainversus Padmavati Analkumar Mishra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 395
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that thecontention that the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), invoking the arbitration clause, is vagueor bereft of material particulars, cannot be a ground to reject the applicationunder Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held thatthe provisions of Section 21 of the A&C Act do not even remotely suggestthat the nature of dispute has to be enumerated or explained in the noticeinvoking the arbitration clause.
Case title - MITULBHAIRANCHODBHAI LAKHANI Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [SPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20013 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 396
The Gujarat High Court has observed thatthe Electricity Regulatory Commission of the state cannot adjudicate the electricity theft issues in the exercise ofits powers under, the Electricity Act, 2003.
The bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai wasdealing with a plea challenging an order of the Gujarat Electricity RegulatoryCommission dismissing a plea moved by the petitioner challenging before it, theinstitution of an inquiry against him in connection with an electricity theftcase.
Case Title: KamleshKumar C. Dave v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 397
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petitionseeking withdrawal of the prosecution against the sitting BJP MLADharmendrasinh alias Hakubha Jadeja, who is an accused in a 2007 case of mobviolence.
"This Court firmly believes that anyhow and at anycost, the State Government is trying to save his sitting MLA under theprovisions of Section 321 of the Code under the pretext of larger publicinterest," said Justice Niral R. Mehta in the judgement.
Sec.19Of MSMED Act Applies To All Kinds Of Challenges : Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Spunpipe &Construction Company v. State of Gujarat, R/Special Civil Application No.8109 of 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 398
The High Court of Gujarat has held thatSection 19 of MSMED Act, which provides for 75% deposit of the awarded amountas a pre-condition to challenging any order, award or decree passed in favourof the supplier, applies to all challenge applications regardless of whetherthe decree, award, order was passed by MSME Council, independent arbitration orthe Court.
The bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi has held if Section 19of the Act is made applicable only to the award passed by the Council, then theuse of the word 'decree' under Section 19 would be rendered nugatory as theCouncil cannot pass a decree, further, it would also frustrate the object ofthe Section that is to secure the interest of the small-scale industries i.e.,supplier.
Case Title: Dharmesh @Dhamo Ashokbhai Rana v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 399
The Gujarat High Court, while hearing a petition challengingthe detention of petitioner under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti SocialActivities Act, 1985 (PASA), has held that simpliciter registration of FIR/scannot be held to have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of 'publicorder' under PASA and the authorities cannot detain a person merely upon theregistration of an FIR.
The petitioner-detenue filed a petition challenging the orderof detention which was passed by the respondent-authorities in exercise ofpowers conferred to them under section 3(2) of the PASA by bringing the detenuewithin the definitional scope of Section 2(ha) of PASA – which defines a'sexual offender.'
Case Title: Vidya RameshChand Shah v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 400
The Gujarat High Court has declared as unconstitutional theState government's policy giving priority to persons domiciled in Gujarat forthe purpose of cadaveric organ transplant (transplant which takes place uponthe death of the donor as opposed to live organ transplants).
A single bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav ruled,
"While interpreting Article 21 of the Constitutionof India, the Apex Court has held that the 'Right to Health' is an integralpart of the 'Right to Life' and the State has a constitutional obligation toprovide health facilities. Denial of medical treatment to thepetitioners who are not domiciles of Gujarat is illegal and unconstitutional."
Case Title: Imran @Chhotu Kadva Istyak Ahemad Siddiki v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 401
The Gujarat High Court recently pulled up an undertrial,accused in at least 7 FIRs, who produced a fake wedding card to secure bail onthe pretext of marriage.
The single bench of Justice Samir J. Dave imposeda cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for abusing the process of the Court.
ReassessmentPowers Could Not Be used For Reverification Or For A Rowing Inquiry: GujaratHigh Court
Case Title: Piyush AmbalalGandhi Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 402
The Gujarat High Court has held that thereassessment powers could not be exercised either for the purpose ofreverification or to have a merry sailing for a rowing inquiry.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and JusticeBhargav D. Karia has observed that the assessing officer wanted toundertake a fishing inquiry in relation to an issue about which he had alreadysolicited information and examined it.
Case Title: GundeepSingh Sood v Insolvency Professional Agency Of Institute Of Cost Accountants OfIndia.
Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 403
The Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad Bench,comprising of Justice Biren Vaishnav, while adjudicating a petitionfiled in Gundeep Singh Sood v Insolvency Professional Agency OfInstitute Of Cost Accountants Of India, has set aside an orderpassed by IPA ICAI refusing registration to an applicant on the ground of lowCIBIL Score and pending proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. TheBench has directed the IPA ICAI to pass a fresh order, by taking intoconsideration the fact that Petitioner's CIBIL score was low due to itsengagement as a Director in the Companies.
FormerJudicial Member Of NCLT Has No Vested Right To Reappointment: Gujarat HighCourt
Case title - MANORAMA KUMARI D/O. UMA SHANKARPRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA [SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23268 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 404
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday observedthat a former Judicial member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) hasno vested right to reappointment.
The bench of Justice N. V. Anjaria and JusticeSandeep N. Bhatt observed thus while dealing with a writ petitionfiled by a former Judicial Member NCLT, Ahmedabad (Ms. Manorama Kumari) seekingre-appointment to the post.
Kumari was appointed on June 1, 2016, for a term of 5 yearsas per Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, and she demitted office on June5, 2021, as Acting President. She joined as member from bar and had been seniorstanding counsel of CBI in Gauhati High Court.
Case Title: M/s Karan PaperMills versus M/s Shah Paper Pack Industries
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 405
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that thefindings of the Arbitrator relating to the issue of limitation, arrived atwhile dealing with an application filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the jurisdiction of theArbitrator on the ground that the claims raised by the claimant were barred bylimitation, do not constitute an 'interim award'.
Case title - JAYANTIBHAISHRAVANBHAI RAJPUT v. MINOR NAYRA JAYANTIBHAI RAJPUT THROUGH MAULIKA W/OJAYANTIBHAI RAJPUT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 406
The Gujarat High Court has observed thatthe valuation of the husband's economic condition put forth by the wife, if notdisputed by the husband (backed by appropriate materials), can be taken as abase to determine interim maintenance to the wife.
The bench of Justice Umesh A Trivedi alsoobserved that a husband is required to lead cogent evidence to prove that hiswife leads an adulterous life before the Court to make a case that his wife isnot entitled to maintenance.
MereE-Way Bill Expiry Does Not Establishes Intention To Evade Taxes: Gujarat HighCourt
Case Title: Shree GovindAlloys Versus State of Gujarat R/Special Civil Application No. 23835of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 407
The Gujarat High Court has held that meree-way bill expiry does not establish an intention to evade taxes.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna M. Bhatt has observed that the detention was on the ground thatthe goods were subject to the expiration of the e-way bill number, which hadexpired during the transit, and this cannot be the ground for detaining andseizing M.S. Billet along with the truck.
Case title - SHANKAR @ SHIVAMAHESHWAR SAVAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 408
The Gujarat High Court has recentlyobserved that an accused won't be entitled to default bail if the police havenot filed an FSL report along with the charge sheet.
The bench of Justice Samir J. Dave observedthus as it noted that a charge sheet filed without annexing the FSL reportcannot be termed as defective or incomplete and thus, non-filing of the FSLreport gives no indefeasible right to the accused to get default bail.
Case Title: AartosInternational LLP versus Deputy Commissioner (Customs)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 409
The Gujarat High Court remarked that though it is in favourof the automatic system-driven process for initiating refund of IGST, over theofficer driven process, however, there is an apathy at the level of the Goodsand Service Tax Network (GSTN) to address and rectify the limitations that comewith making all the processes system driven.
The bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Mauna M.Bhatt therefore suggested the portal to consider introducing a 'May IHelp You' feature to enable a direct communication between GSTN and assessee.
The Court was dealing with the case of the petitioner, whoserefund claim of IGST could not be processed by the Indian Customs EDI Systembecause of some shortcoming in the software
Case Title: FCS Manufacturing(India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 410
The Gujarat High Court has directed thedepartment to release the bank account from the attachment of the subsidiary ofthe Taiwan Company subject to the personal undertakings of the directors.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna M. Bhatt, in order to secure the revenue's interest, has directed thedepartment to continue the attachment of FD with DBS amounting to Rs. 2.65crores.
NoFraudulent Intention Established: Gujarat High Court Quashes Penalty
Case Title: Shree GovindAlloys Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 411
The Gujarat High Court has held that thedepartment could not establish any element of tax evasion with fraudulentintent or negligence.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna M. Bhatt has observed that the delay was of almost 4 1⁄2 hoursbefore the e-Way bill could expire. It appeared to be bonafide and withoutestablishing any fraudulent intention.
Case Title: AtlafbhaiRajabali Dosani Vs Superintendent
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 412
The Gujarat High Court has quashed theorder of cancellation of registration and directed the department to restorethe registration of the petitioner.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna M. Bhatt has observed that the zero supply led the petitioner tobelieve that he was not required to file the returns. The assessee's consultanthad not advised him correctly, which led to the non-filing of the return, whichhas now been filed.
Case Title: Adani WilmarLimited versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 413
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that thenotification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, enhancing therate of customs duty, would be applicable only on the bills of entry presentedafter the said notification was e-published in the electronic Gazette and digitallysigned.
The bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Nisha M.Thakore took into account that, with effect from 01.10.2015, theMinistry of Urban Development has switched over to e-publishing the Governmentof India Gazette Notification on its official website, and that it has doneaway with the physical printing of Gazette Notification. The Courtadded that only after the notification is signed digitally, can it be uploadedfor e-publishing in the e-Gazette.
Case Title: NiharRanjitbhai Barad v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 414
The Gujarat High Court, while refusing bail to a teacheraccused of committing aggravated sexual assault on his student aged 12 years,invoked a Sanskrit verse and highlighted the role and impact of a 'Guru'in the life of his/her 'Disciple'.
Justice Samir J. Dave said:
"The accused is not a layman, but a teacher. Theonly career that influences other professions is teaching. It has the power toinfluence young people's future for the benefit of future generations. Theteacher is expected to act as a protector. Such heinous acts would cast alifelong psychological and emotional impact on the victim."
Case Title: MahendraChawla v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 415
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by acandidate for setting aside a medical examination report which declared himunfit for the post of 'Constable Store Keeper' in the Border Security Force(BSF) in view of a tattoo depicting a heart and arrow with initials 'M' on hisright forearm.
The petitioner had applied for the post in July and hadcleared all the examinations. Thereafter, he was called for the 'MedicalExamination' on November 17, where he was declared 'unfit' in view of thetattoo. Upon removal of the tattoo, he appeared for the 'Review MedicalExamination' but was again declared unfit.
Case title - SUO MOTUVersus STATE OF GUJARAT, CHIEF SECRETARY
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 416
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an applicationmoved by certain elected members of the Morbi Municipality seeking theirimpleadment in the suo moto case instituted by the High Court pertaining MorbiBridge collapse, which claimed 135 lives.
The bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and JusticeAshutosh J. Shastri opined that the councillors are not a necessary orproper party to the suo moto case proceedings and therefore, at this stage,their presence wasn't necessary.
Case title - Rafiq AlamParmar vs State Of Gujarat and 3 Others [SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7483 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 417
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated thatwhile considering the case of a convict for remission, the state's remissionpolicy prevailing on the date of conviction shall be made applicable indeciding remission application.
The bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observedthus while directing the State Government to take a decision on the remissionapplication pertaining to a Murder convict (Rafiq Aalambhai Parmar) sentencedto life imprisonment in 2001 within 4 weeks as per the policy of remissionwhich was prevailing at the time of his conviction.
DirectorsNot Negligent; Wrong Invocation Of Section 179 IT Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Devendra BabulalJain versus Income Tax Officer
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 418
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that theDirectors of the assessee company cannot be held negligent merely because theyfailed to deposit before the Assessing Officer 20% of the demand raised, so asto seek stay of demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A). Thus,the Court held that jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,holding the Directors of the assessee company liable to pay the company'soutstanding tax dues, could not have been invoked by the Income TaxAuthorities.
