Gujarat High Court Monthly Digest: January & February 2022 [Citations 1-59]

Nominal Index

M/S. Karnataka Traders V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 1

Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel Vs Reshma Ruchin Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 2

The Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar Association, Surat V. Union Of India & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 3

Sujal Jayantibhai Mayatra Versus NA; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 4

Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli Vs Shantaben Maganbhai Koli; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 5

Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal Vs Alarakhbhai Yusufbhai Juneja; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 6

Ineos Styrolution India Limited Vs Shaileshbhai Manibhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 7

Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 8

State Of Gujarat V. Pwd & Forest Employees Union; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 9

State Of Gujarat Vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 10

Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 11

National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara And Ors; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 12

Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena V. Government Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 13

Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 14

State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 15

Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 16

Mamta Bhavesh Dave Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Gandhinagar; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 17

Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 18

Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus The Arbitrator, Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 19

Ranjitprasad Chandradevram Rajvanshi Properitor Of Shree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 20

Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, Thro Managing Trustee Versus Collector; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 21

Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 22

Nipun Praveen Singhvi V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 23

Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs Shantuben Sanjaybhai Mer; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 24

Essar Bulk Terminal Limited Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 25

Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 26

Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai V. State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 27

Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim Vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 28

Firoz Hajibhai Sodha Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 29

C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 30

Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 31

Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 32

Minakshiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 33

Sapna Gehlot W/O Devendra Singh Gehlot Thru Poa Kuldeep Singh Chauhan Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 34

Arvind Limited Through Autho. Rep. Hardik Motiwala Versus Suo Motu; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 35

Hirabhai Lakhabhai Bharwad @ Virabhai Lakhabhai Bharwad Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 36

Hiteshkumar Nileshbhai Prajapati Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 37

Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat And Ors; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 38

Sonalben Bhanabhai Tadvi-Minor Through Uncle & 2 Other(S) Versus Madhuben Bhagubhai Tadvi & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 39

H.K.Thakur Versus Nazir Noormohmed Kara & 2 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 40

M/S. Raghunandan Enterprise Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 41

Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 42

Rajubhai Kanubhai Bharwad Versus South Indian Bank; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 43

Bilkisbanu (Bilkisbano) Hanifkhan @ Kalo Munno Amirkhan Jatmalek Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 44

Nandlal Namdev Otwani Versus Vijay Jayprakash Ahuja; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 45

Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 46

Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 47

Dharmendra Ravipratap Rajak Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 48

Hirenbhai Hiteshbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 49

Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 50

J. V. State Of Gujarat (Name Concealed Intentionally); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 51

Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 52

Parulben Natwarlal Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 53

New India Assurance Co Ltd Versus Mukeshbhai Bhimsingbhai Rajput & 4 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 54

Solanki Vipulkumar Virabhai Versus Institute Of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 55

Dinesh Sharan Thakur Versus Dr. M K Shah Medical College And Research Centre; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 56

Gujarat Rajya Hotel Federation & 9 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 57

Kiritkumar Ravjibhai Sharma Versus Principal/Trustee Saraswati Kadavni Mandal; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 58

Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited V. Rmc Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 59

Goods In Transit Can't Be Confiscated Under CSGT Act On Grounds Of Under-Valuation Or Wrong Route: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that mere undervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't be sufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedings including the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against the Petitioner, Karnataka Traders, who is a seller of the goods (Arecanut) and a registered dealer under the GST.

Woman's Right To Reside In 'Shared Household' Can't Be Defeated By Summary Eviction Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act?: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has observed that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

The Bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of S Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, wherein it was held that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.

IT Portal Glitches: CBDT Assures Gujarat High Court To Resolve Issues Of Assessees, Specifies Its Grievance Mechanism

The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT) today assured the Gujarat High Court that it shall attend to the grievances of the assessee (intending to file ITR and Tax Audit Reports) regarding the technical glitches existing on the Income Tax Portal.

The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore was also told about the grievance mechanism that has been employed by the Board to deal with the existing and potential issues with regard to the technical glitches of the Income Tax Portal.

Mutual Consent Divorce: Gujarat HC Refuses To Waive Off 6 Months Cooling Period For Couple Who Lived Together For 12 Days

The Gujarat High Court recently upheld an order of the family court refusing to waive off the statutory 6 months cooling period in a plea by a couple seeking a mutual divorce who lived with each other for a period of 12 days only.

The Bench of Justice A. C. Joshi observed that the family court rightly passed the order refusing to waive off the cooling period therefore, there was no requirement to interfere in the impugned order of the Court.

Time Limit Of 90 Days For Written Statement Under Order VIII Rule 10 Directory, But Courts Must Use The Discretion Sparingly : Gujarat High Court

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi at the Gujarat High Court has held that the maximum limit of 90 days for filing the written statement as under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory in nature. However, the Courts must exercise this discretion sparingly and not in the routine course.

Difference Between Article 226 & Article 227 Of Constitution: Gujarat High Court Explains

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the High Court must exercise its Supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly.

Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi also discussed the difference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in detail. Justice Joshi termed the exercise of power under Article 227 as 'discretionary' while the jurisdiction under Article 226 as 'a matter of right.'

Gujarat High Court Explains The Meaning Of "Full Wages Last Drawn" Under Section 17(B) of Industrial Disputes Act

Case Title: Ineos Styrolution India Limited vs Shaileshbhai Manibhai Patel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 7

Upholding the decision of the Single Judge Bench, the Bench comprising Justice Vora and Justice Mayee has affirmed that under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'), the workman is entitled to payment of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court and not from the date of filing of affidavit as contended by the Appellant-Company.

Inter-Religious Marriage: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To Couple, Girl's Parents Told Not To Misbehave

Case Title - HAMIM HABIBBHAI KHAMBHATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 8

The Gujarat High Court recently granted relief to an interfaith married couple, and sternly asked the parents of the girl, who are opposed to the inter faith marriage and their relationship, not to misbehave.

The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was hearing the Habeas Corpus plea by one Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati who filed a writ of habeas corpus for production of his wife with whom he got married under the Special Marriage Act.

No Discrimination When Persons Not Similarly Situated: Gujarat HC Refuses To Extend Govt Employee Benefits To Employees Of Autonomous Body

Case Title: State of Gujarat v. PWD & Forest Employees Union

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 9

The Gujarat High Court recently held that the benefits flowing from a Resolution applicable to the State Government employees cannot be automatically claimed by the employees of the autonomous body.

The bench comprising Justice A. P. Thaker and Justice N.V. Anjaria discarded the plea of discrimination asserted by the employees of Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation insofar as they were denied the benefit of a Resolution of the Public Works Department of the Government of Gujarat, whereby scheme was launched for the daily wagers working in the departments of the Government and under which the daily wagers came to be granted the benefits depending upon the completion of their service.

Prosecution Must Satisfy Section 107 Requirements To Prove An Offence Under Section 306 Of IPC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 10

While explaining that to prove an offence under Section 306, the Prosecution must satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 first, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgement and quash the order of acquittal. While doing so, the Bench delved into the terms 'abetment' and 'instigation' under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, at length.

Gujarat HC Puts 6 Week Stay On Centre's Move To Withdraw Anti-Dumping Duty On PVC Flex Films Originating From China

Case Title - Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 11

While hearing a case challenging the Central Government's move to withdraw anti-dumping duty on the imports of "PVC Flex Films" from China, the Gujarat High Court last week stayed the notification of the Central Government for a period of six weeks.

This order has been made by the bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore in view of the pendency of an appeal before the Special Bench of the Tribunal under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 challenging the withdrawal of the said anti-dumping duty.

Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Award When Driver Of Offending Vehicle Did Not Have Valid License : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd vs Bharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 12

An insurance company cannot be held liable for indemnity if the driver of the offending vehicle does not have a valid license on the date of the accident, Gujarat High Court has held.

In an appeal filed against an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had held that the insurance company would be liable to indemnify an award for accidental damage even if the license of the person driving the offending vehicle had expired, Justice RM Chayya, overturned the award of the Tribunal. It stated that in absence of any valid license, the insurance company must be exonerated from the liability of payment of indemnity.

Unexplained Delay & Laches Enough For Court To Not Exercise Its Extraordinary Jurisdiction Under Art. 226: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena v. Government Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 13

The Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained delay or laches in filing the writ petition is a sufficient cause for a Court to refrain from exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In an appeal challenging the settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings a decade ago, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri observed that the principle of 'delay defeats equity' shall be applicable in the present scenario considering the petitioners have woken up from a deep slumber after several years without providing any rationale for such delay.

Every Offence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala vs State of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 14

The Gujarat High Court has held that when parties have settled the dispute amicably, the compounding of the offence is permitted with regard to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Vipul Pancholi took note of Section 147 of the Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.

Robbery By Five Persons Or More An Essential Element Of Dacoity: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 15

While affirming that the commission of robbery by five or more persons is an essential ingredient of dacoity under Section 391 of IPC, the Gujarat High Court refused to set aside the order of the Sessions Court acquitting the accused persons.

A Bench bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt observed,

"According to section 391 of IPC, dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons. Essential element of offence of dacoity under section 395 is that five or more persons must have participated in the offence of dacoity. No such evidence is coming on record so as to infer that respondent nos.3 to 6 actually participated in committing offence of dacoity."

Successive FIRs: Gujarat High Court Explains 'Test of Sameness' & 'Test of Consequence'

Case Title: Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja vs State of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 16

The Gujarat High Court recently delved into the 'Test of Sameness' and the 'Test of Consequence' that are relevant while determining the legality of a 'second FIR'.

Second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or crime is not permissible in law. However, to determine whether the second impugned FIR is based on the same offence and arises out of a different transaction, the above two tests may be applied.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Reassessment Notice Issued To Partner Not Deriving Any Remuneration From Firm

Case Title: MAMTA BHAVESH DAVE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, GANDHINAGAR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 17

The Gujarat High Court recently set aside the income re-assessment notice issued by the Income Tax Department to the partner of a firm, holding that there is no reason for taxing the remuneration from the capital account of the partnership firm since the partner had agreed not to derive any income thereof.

The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M Thakore noted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of the deduction for the remuneration/interest on the partners capital account however, the same was added back on the ground that it was not claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account.

Ledger In Itself Does Not Have Evidentiary Value Under S.34 Of Evidence Act Unless Corroborated By Other Evidence: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18

Although S.34 of the Evidence Act does not require a specific form of corroborative evidence, under it, a ledger by itself does not have evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent entries like roznama (Daily cash entries) or any witness or even orally by the power of attorney, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, Gujarat High Court has held.

The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Niral R Mehta while admitting the appeal of the Plaintiff-Appellant ('Plaintiff') has observed that the ledger does not have any evidentiary value on its own under S.34 of Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by daily cash book entries/roznama. However, in the present case, since the suit proceeded ex-parte and the Plaintiff had produced other evidence duly stamped and signed which went unopposed by the Respondent and that Plaintiff's power of attorney had provided oral evidence substantiating the ledger, the Plaintiff was entitled to recover money from the Respondent.

Statutory Remedy Against Appointment Of Arbitrator Lies Under Arbitration Act, Can't Invoke Extraordinary Jurisdiction Under Art. 226: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus The Arbitrator, Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 19

If an Act prescribes a mechanism to address certain grievances and the petitioner is ignorant of such statutory mechanism or chooses not to avail them and straightaway invokes High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under A.226 of the Constitution, then exercising such jurisdiction for the same is not in the fitness of things, Gujarat high Court has held.

In a writ petition seeking stay of the arbitration proceedings on account of a past working relationship between the Arbitrator and the Respondent, Justice Ashutosh J Shastri, while emphasising the remedies available to the Petitioner under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator, dismissed the plea.

Can't Move High Court Directly Seeking Registration Of FIR Without First Approaching Magistrate U/S 156(3) CrPC: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Ranjitprasad Chandradevram Rajvanshi Properitor Of Shree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 20

Various applications seeking registrations of FIR are being filed before the High Court directly without approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Gujarat High Court has observed.

According to Justice Vipul Pancholi, this is in contravention of the Supreme Court's observations on the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The Bench, therefore, rejected the Petition filed under Article 226 seeking registration of FIR basis the written complaint filed by him with the Respondent-Police Authority.

Less Graves Cannot Be A Ground To Vest Kabrastan Land In Govt: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, Thro Managing Trustee Versus Collector

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 21

"One cannot expect that graveyard should be full always and if there are less graves, it cannot be said to be a ground to vest the land in Government," the Gujarat High Court has held.

Justice Dr. AP Thaker made this observation while considering a petition filed by the Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust for quashing the order passed by the Collector in 2006, vesting the kabrastan land in the Government.

Unless Reasoning Of Trial Court Is Perverse, Judgment Of Acquittal Cannot Be Upset: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 22

While dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, the Gujarat High Court has held.

A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt added, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. Making this observation, it dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order of Sessions Court, acquitting the accused from charge of Murder.

Gujarat High Court Disposes PIL Seeking Appointment Of Presiding Officer In DRT Ahmedabad In View Of Centre's Notification

Case Title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 23

The Gujarat High Court today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in view of Centre's notification giving additional charge of DRT-I, Ahmedabad to the presiding officer of DRT-II till March 31, 2022, or till the permanent appointment of a member is made.

At the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R. Mehta also asked the ASG Devyang Vyas to make efforts for the appointment of a permanent member as soon as possible so that the presiding officer of DRT II isn't burdened with work.

If Sufficient Cause Is Shown, Delay Can Be Condoned For Substantive Justice U/S 5 Limitation Act: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To Govt Company

Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs Shantuben Sanjaybhai Mer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 24

The consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice", the Gujarat High Court observed recently.

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi made this observation while hearing a Petition under Article 227, against an order of the District Judge for condonation of delay of 132 days caused in preferring the civil appeal against the judgement passed by the Judge.

Courts Must Be Conscious Of Power Of Arbitral Tribunal While Exercising Discretion Under Section 9 Of The Arbitration Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 25

Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ('Act') envisages 'interim measures' and the Courts must not adjudicate a substantive issue at this stage, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. Further, once jurisdiction under Section 9 is invoked and the remedy has been exhausted, similar interim measures cannot be claimed by a party before the arbitral tribunal, as this may give rise to two orders simultaneously- one by the court and another by the arbitral tribunal.

The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Niral Mehta was hearing First Appeals (clubbed due to inter-related issues) challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court at Surat under Section 9 of the Act.

Encroachment Over Public Land Can't Be Retained Citing Right To Shelter: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan vs State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 26

While dismissing a PIL seeking to restrain the Railway authority from evicting slum dwellers until rehabilitation, the Gujarat High Court has held that the right to shelter is not a ground to continue encroachment on a public land. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri recalled the observations made by a previous Bench in this regard:

"The debate as regards the rights of encroachers over public land vis a vis the right to shelter should come to an end. The right to shelter and encroachment are two different facet. An encroacher may save himself from being forcibly evicted only if during his period of stay over the encroached public land any enforceable legal right has crystallized in his favour. Otherwise, merely by asserting the Right to Shelter , an encroacher, over public land, cannot say that he cannot be evicted."

Judicial Interference Necessary When Principles Of Natural Justice Are Ignored In Determining Citizenship: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 27

While inquiring into a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the Petitioner seeking the release of her son from Special Operational Group, the Gujarat High Court has remarked,

"the least that is expected of the person who has been given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of a person on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned."

This observation was made in reference to the wide powers that the Central Government is vested with to inquire into the nationality of a person and deport the person if not found to be an Indian national.

Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage Is Not Proper: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28

The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper. Justice AP Thaker remarked,

"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 25 Evidence Act Inadmissible In Court But Significant For Investigation: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

Case Title: Firoz Hajibhai Sodha vs State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 29

The statement by a co-accused under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act can be treated as a clue or piece of information for initiating and conducting an investigation to find out whether there is any independent and satisfactory material for further investigation, the Gujarat Court has clarified. The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi made this observation while hearing an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR for charges under sections 65(e), 116B, 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

Offense Under Section 138 Of NI Act Maintaianable Only For Cheques Issued For 'Enforceable Debt' And Not 'Security': Gujarat High Court

Case Title: C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

"It is a settled proposition of law that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would lie only in respect of any 'enforceable debt'", the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi made this observation in connection with an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the CJM Rajkot for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Gujarat High Court Grants Joint Custody Of Differently Abled Corpus To His Father & Major Daughter

Case Title: Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 31

In a peculiar case, where the corpus lost his memory up to 95% and his wife died by committing suicide, the Gujarat High Court has permitted the corpus' major daughter and his father to share joint custody of the corpus.

The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt further directed that once the second daughter of the corpus becomes a major, she will also have joint custody of the corpus and if, by then the corpus has completely cured and medically released, they can continue to look after him.

Depletion Of Sex Ratio Resulting Into More And More 'Exchange Marriages': Gujarat High Court

Case Title - SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 32

The Gujarat High Court has observed that the depletion of the sex ratio in the State of Gujarat is resulting in more and more cases of exchange marriages. It may be noted that it is a form of marriage involving an arranged and reciprocal exchange of spouses between two groups. The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt observed thus while hearing a case while uniting a couple after they were separated by the father of the woman as he wanted to marry her 'in exchange'.

Termination Order Referring To FIR Against Employee Without Departmental Inquiry Is Stigmatic: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: MINAKSHIBEN LAXMANBHAI PARALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 33

An order of termination referring to the FIR and case filed against the employee without conducting full departmental inquiry is bound to be stigmatic, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a petition under Article 226 challenging the communication which terminated the services of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Bench quashed and set aside the aforesaid communication.

"Welfare Of Children Most Important" Gujarat High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition In Favour Of Mother And Directs Children's Return To New Zealand

Case Title: SAPNA GEHLOT W/O DEVENDRA SINGH GEHLOT THRU POA KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 34

Emphasising the significance of a mother's guardianship in the upbringing of her children, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Husband to hand over the custody of the three young children to the Petitioner-Mother situated in New Zealand. Coming down heavily on the Respondent-Husband, the Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Nirzar S Desai remarked tersely:

"Here is the husband who had with predesigned tact had taken the children away from natural guardian mother and the mother's passport also was taken away by him ensuring that she could not travel and could not follow him up. He also simultaneously initiated the legal proceedings for custody and divorce knowing fully well that the wife's passport was with him and she was unable to come to India."

Industries Have No Legal Right To Discharge Industrial Effluent Into Sewer Lines: Gujarat HC Comes Down Heavily On Textile Industries For Sabarmati River Pollution

Case Title: ARVIND LIMITED THROUGH AUTHO. REP. HARDIK MOTIWALA Versus SUO MOTU

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 35

Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollution from textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with high chemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluent management in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the Sabarmati River. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati has made this observation while declining reliefs to the textile industries which prayed the Court to permit the industries to reconnect the sewer lines to enable them to discharge industrial effluent into the sewer lines.

No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To Land Sold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: HIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD @ VIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 36

"When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land in question", the Gujarat High Court has held.

The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation in a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department ('SSRD') vesting the Petitioner's land with the Government.

Gujarat High Court Grants Protection To Young Couple Wishing To Marry

Case Title: HITESHKUMAR NILESHBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 37

The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt while granting protection to a young couple wishing to marry each other, admitted the writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Jayaben Shrimali from the care of the District Legal Service Authority, Banaskantha.

The Court had, on an earlier occasion, granted protection to the corpus who was interested in marrying the Petitioner Hiteshkumar Prajapati but was pressurised to state that he was below the age of 21 years. She was accordingly granted accommodation at a Women Protection Home until the Petitioner turned 21 year of age on 07.02.2022. She was granted security and basic amenities by the DLSA Full Time Secretary and the Administrator.

Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: DINESHBHAI DHUDABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT and ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 38

Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav while allowing the Petition challenging the order terminating the Petitioner's services has observed as follows;

"The employer is not allowed to hire and fire even if the employee, maybe ad hoc or probationer, and the services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

Only Use Of Motor Vehicle Required To Be Established U/S 163A MVA; Need Not Prove Someone Else Was Driving Negligently: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: SONALBEN BHANABHAI TADVI-MINOR THROUGH UNCLE & 2 other(s) Versus MADHUBEN BHAGUBHAI TADVI & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 39

Affirming that it is not necessary under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted in the death of the victim, the Gujarat High Court has imposed liability on the insurance company to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.

The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep N Bhatt ordered this in connection with the First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act by the Appellants who were dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Strengthened Upon Acquittal; 'Special Reasons' Must For Interference In Appeal: Gujarat HC

Case Title: H.K.THAKUR Versus NAZIR NOORMOHMED KARA & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 40

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial Court. The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra M Sareen observed,

"in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the Accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his Acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."

Assigning Share In Profit In Partnership Firm Different From Constituting A Sub-Partnership: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S. RAGHUNANDAN ENTERPRISE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 41

There is a fine distinction between a case where a partner of a firm assigns his/her share in favour of a third person and a case where a partner constitutes a sub-partnership with his/her share in the main partnership, the Gujarat High Court has held.

The observation was made by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore while hearing a Writ Petition filed by a Partnership Firm, seeking to quash an order of the Income tax Department which attached the land of the firm as the property of an Assessee.

Duties Of An Electrical Assistant Are "Onerous": Gujarat High Court Rejects Plea For Quashing "Unfit Certificate" Of Colour-Blind Candidate

Case Title: BHAVESH KHIMABHAI PANDIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 42

Affirming that the nature of duties of an Electrical Assistant are "onerous", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav at the Gujarat High Court has declined to allow the Petition of a colour-blind candidate seeking the quashment of "unfit certificate" for the said post.

The Petitioner had applied for the post of an Electrical Assistant and was accordingly, sent for medical examination wherein he was declared unfit basis colour vision blindness. Thereafter, the impugned certificate was issued to him by the Civil Hospital Ahmedabad stating that he was unfit for the position.

Gujarat HC Restrains Bank From Dispossessing Family Till Filing Of Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act, Subject To Deposit Of ₹20L

Case Title: RAJUBHAI KANUBHAI BHARWAD Versus SOUTH INDIAN BANK

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 43

Considering that the Appellants were ready and willing to deposit INR 20 lacs and the fact that the property which was likely to be auctioned was residential premises wherein two families were residing, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Bank to not dispossess the family from the property until 11th March 2022. The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai was hearing an appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent which sought relief from dispossession of property which was going to be auctioned.

Gujarat High Court Rejects Bail For Offences Under Gujarat Terrorism Control Act; Explains 'Organised Crime'

Case Title: BILKISBANU (BILKISBANO) HANIFKHAN @ KALO MUNNO AMIRKHAN JATMALEK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 44

The Gujarat High Court recently denied bail to an accused under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Act, 2015, stating that accused was prima facie a part of an 'organised crime syndicate' involved in highway thefts.

'Organized Crime Syndicate', defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organised crime.

Financial Crisis Can Be One Of The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: NANDLAL NAMDEV OTWANI Versus VIJAY JAYPRAKASH AHUJA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 45

"Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay," the Gujarat High Court has held. The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation with regard to a Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring an appeal from an order wherein the Applicant was restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay.

Electronic Credit Ledger Can Be Blocked Under GST Rules 2017 Only If Credit Balance Is Available: Gujarat HC Orders Authorities To Refund ₹20L

Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.

"Condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow the debit of amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future," observed Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore.

Accused Must Have Knowledge Of Victim's Caste To Be Prosecuted For Offences Under SC/ST Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: RAJESHBHAI JESINGBHAI DAYARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 47

The Gujarat High Court has held that to prosecute a person under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it must be established that the accused had knowledge of the victim's caste.

"If we refer Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, it must be within knowledge of the accused person that such person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. It is nowhere alleged by the complainant that the accused persons were having knowledge that the complainant was the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member," Justice BN Karia opined.

Public Interest Has Precedence Over Private Interest: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Stall Redevelopment Of Public Housing Blocks

Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48

The Gujarat High Court has refused to stall the redevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting that public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties. Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati observed, "Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration."

Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant Anticipatory Bail: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49

"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.

Public Service, Nature Of Misconduct Of Employee Significant Considerations U/S 11 Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vs Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 50

The Gujarat High Court has held that while exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Courts/ Tribunals must factor in the nature of employment, whether public or private.

Section 11A empowers Labour Courts/ Tribunals to lessen the punishment of 'discharge or dismissal from service' for employee's misconduct and direct reinstatement on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.

Ensure That All Police Stations Have Lawyers' Panel To Aid Sexual Assault Victims: Gujarat High Court Directs DGP

Case title - J. v. State Of Gujarat (name concealed intentionally)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 51

The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Gujarat State to ensure that all the police stations in the state have a panel of lawyers to aid the victims of the sexual assault crimes in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 1995 decision.

The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee issued this order after noting that the Supreme Court had issued, inter alia, the following 4 directions in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 14], and which are not being followed in the state of Gujarat

Parties Would Be Put In 'Embarrassing Position' Not Ground To Dispense Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: MAHESHBHAI BHURJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 52

The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that in dispensing with departmental inquiry, the authority must arrive at a satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure and it must record reason to show that such satisfaction is arrived at on objective facts and not on whims and caprice.

Further, Justice Sangeeta Vishen observed that parties concerned will be put in an embarrassing position cannot be a ground to dispense with the inquiry.

No Relaxation In Requirements Stipulated In Recruitment Advertisement Unless Power Is Specifically Reserved: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: PARULBEN NATWARLAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 53

"When a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is reserved," the Gujarat High Court held recently.

The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a Special Civil Application filed by one Parulben Patel, seeking appointment to the post of Live-Stock Inspector (Class III), and that the requirement for having 10th class certificate in English be relaxed.

Motor Accident Claim | Lack Of Endorsement To Drive Transport Vehicle Not Equivalent To Lack Of Valid Driving License: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MUKESHBHAI BHIMSINGBHAI RAJPUT & 4 other(s)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 54

The Gujarat High Court has recently held it to be a well-settled principle of law that "merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle in the license does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver is not holding valid and effective driving license."

Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed this in connection with a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act ('MV Act') wherein the Appellant-Insurance Company was aggrieved with the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation worth INR 1,55,000 with 9% interest pa to the claimants (driver) and owner jointly and severally.

No Appointment For Visually Impaired Candidate If Such Vacancy Is Not Requisitioned In The Advertisement: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: SOLANKI VIPULKUMAR VIRABHAI Versus INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SECTION (IBPS)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 55

"The provisions of the 2016 (Rights of Person with Disability) Act do not envisage a situation to give appointment to a person in absence of any vacancy in the category," the Gujarat High Court has held.

Justice Biren Vaishnav observed so while hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the Petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, was aggrieved by non-appointment to the Saurashtra Gramin Bank, for the reason that no vacancy for visually impaired (VI) category was requisitioned.

Handing Over Administrative Charge To More Experienced Candidate Not Stigmatic To Predecessor: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: DINESH SHARAN THAKUR Versus DR. M K SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 56

The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that merely appointing more experienced or senior candidates to an administrative post cannot be said to be stigmatic to the predecessor.

In saying so, the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav has dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner, former HOD (Anesthesia) at a medical college, challenging his removal and appointment of rather senior candidate.

Statutory Processes Have To Be Followed Stringently; Strict Rule Of Interpretation For Unambiguous Provisions: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: GUJARAT RAJYA HOTEL FEDERATION & 9 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 57

"It is cardinal rule of interpretation, that if a statute explicitly mentions a particular process or method, the same has to be stringently and mandatorily followed, and the Courts cannot interpret the same in any other manner when the words of the statue are precise and unambiguous", the Gujarat High Court has observed.

The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has made this observation in a writ petition seeking to quash the notifications which reduced the cash value of the total wage of hotel workers from 33.3% to 19% vide a 15.12.2001 notification.

Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In Appointment At Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA Versus PRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 58

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.

Justice Biren Vaishnav held,

"taking a stand four and half years after his appointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it is a mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four and half years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."

Annexures, Documents Necessary Components of Plaint; Must Be Supplied In Serving Summons Under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1): Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. RMC Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 59

"…it is expressly provided that defendant shall be served with the plaint and the annexures of the plaint, therefore it necessary implies that all the documents which are part of the plaint as annexures are required to be supplied to the defendant while serving the summons", the Gujarat High Court has affirmed yesterday.

The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Samir J. Dave upheld this in connection with a Special Civil Application challenging the rejection of the Applicant's leave to defend on grounds of delay.