Gujarat High Court Quarterly Digest: July To September 2022 [Citation 253 To 387]

Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(Koli Patel) V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253

Chief Officer v/s Decd. Shree Solanki Kanubhai Danabhai 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 Sme Assets Reconstruction Company Limited & 8 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 256

Jayesh Nebhabhai Kambariya V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 257

Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal V/S The State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 258

Nasik Merchants' Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V/s State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 259

Narughar Songhar Goswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 260

Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India V/S Original Claimants & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 261

Garden Silk Mills Limited & 1 Other(S) V/S Liquidator Of Petrofils Cooperative Limited & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 262

Solanki Haribhai Arjanbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 263

Dhanrajsinh Gambhirsinh Thakore V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 264

Narendrasinh Dosabhai Gohil V/S Managing Director & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 265

State Of Gujarat V/S Hasmukhbhai @ Harshadbhai Dahyabhai Makwana 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 266

Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(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 State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269

Navinchandra Somchand, Died Through His Heirs & 1 Other(S) V/S Heirs Of Somchand Bechardas & 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 270

Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 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 ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 273

State Of Gujarat Versus Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274

abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltd v/s nathabhai bhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275

Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276

Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 277

Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278

M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles A Proprietorship Firm Thorugh Its Proprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/S Syndicate Bank Surat Main Branch 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279

M/S Sanganer Enviro Project Development V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280

Krishna Calibration Services v. Jasmin Bharat Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 281

Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) V/S District Superintendent Of Police, Panchamahal At Godhra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 282

Madyahan Bhojan Yojna Karmachari Sangh V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 283

State Of Gujarat V/S Raib Jusab Sama Musalman 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 284

Sailesh Shantilal Lunavia V/S Carborandum Universal Limited 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 Of Gujarat & 1 other 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287

State Of Gujarat V/S Laxmanbhai @ Lakhabhai Pratapbhai Thakor & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 288

The New India Assurance co. Ltd v/s Thakor Kanaji Viraji 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289

Rayma Adham Sela Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 290

Vijaybhai Mansibhai Khavada (Khartani) V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 292

M/S. Overseas healthcare pvt. Ltd. V/s state of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 293

Universal Hospital A1 Ain Llc V/S M/S Yes Bank Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 294

Anilsinh Laghubha Jadeja V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 295

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 296

Gopalbhai Naranbhai @ Narubhai Bhagubhai Ratadiya V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 297

M/S. Mahee Cotex v/s Central Bank Of India, authorised officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 298

Jamnagar municipal corporation v/s Avdhesh Kishor Bhai Solanki 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 299

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. V/s Manojbhai Dashrathbhai Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 300

Kamleshkumar Mohanji Methana V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 301

Gulamkadar Kasambhai Shaikh V/S The State Of Gujarat Thru 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 Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 306

Jerambhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli) Through Bhagwanjibhai Premjibhai Chauhan (Koli) V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 307

Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 308

Ambe Public School V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 309

Savitaben Mangalbhai Parmar V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 310

Akil Valibhai Piplodwala V/S Central Government 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 311

Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. & 1 other(s) v. Presiding Officer & 2 Other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 312

Shambhavi Kumari V/S Sabarmati University & 3 other(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 Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 315

Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 316

Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317

Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/S Pgvcl Through The Deputy Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318

Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S Managing Director/ General Manager (Legal Cell) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319

Shambhubhai Devrajbhai Jaru V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 320

Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/S Govindbhai M Prajapati 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 321

Minalben Satishbhai Solanki V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 322

Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 323

Idea Cellular Limited & 1 Other(S) V/S Union Of India Thro Director & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 324

Dipakkumar Nathabhai Patel V/S Narmadaben Dhirajlal Radadia & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 325

Jayesh Manharlal Gandhi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 326

Chief Executive & 1 Other(S) V/S Vanjibhai Laljibhai Chaudhary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 327

Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Pagi V/S Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 328

X v/s Indext/C Industrial Extension Cottage & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 329

Shaileshbhai Kandubhai Rathwa V/S Gurjar Shankarlal Devalal 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 330

M/S Harsh Transport Private V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 331

Dhavalkumar Ashokbhai Aghera v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 332

State Of Gujarat Versus Balvantsinh Amarsinh Raj 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 333

Rekhaben Shashikant Gade V/S State Of Gujarat & 4 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 334

Kumanbhai Chatrabhjubhaihujbhadaraniya & 18 other(s) v/s Manavadar Municipality & 14 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 335

Pruthvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v/s State Of Gujarat & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 336

Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 337

Pragnesh Harshadbhai Patel @ P.G. @ Pragnesh Gota v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338

Jaferkhan Allarakabhai Radhanpuri V/S Dholka Nagar Palika 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 339

Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 340

Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/O Jayprakash Nareshkumar Joshi v. Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341

Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342

Century Tiles Through Director Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Patel v. The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343

Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. Vinodkumar Bhanabhai Parmar 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344

Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345

State Of Gujarat v. Pratap Prabhuram Devasi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 346

Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8 Other(S) V/S Registrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347

Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 348

Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 349

Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/S Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350

Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/S Superintendent 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351

Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352

Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353

Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354

State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355

Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356

Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357

Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358

Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S The Central Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359

Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S Ketan Chandravadan Soni 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360

Bank Of Baroda V/S Harshadgiri Chanchalgiri Goswami 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361

Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Meraman Dana Harijan & 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363

Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 364

Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/s Chairman & 31 others 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365

Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 366

Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367

Gulamhusen Dadamiya Pir Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 368

Patel Rameshchandra Mangaldas V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 369

Vithal Bogra Shetty V/S Board Of Trustees 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 370

State Of Gujarat V/S Rajeshbhai Ramubhai Patel & 5 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 371

Sharda Chimanbhai Lalbhai V/S Dinesh Mohanbhai Prajapati 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 Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 374

Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 375

Shivpal Singh Chaudhari V/S Central Bureau Of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 376

Sanjay Bhulabhai Patel V/S Pankaj Vinodkumar Patni 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 377

Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378

M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s Competition Commission of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379

Inner Vision Education And Charitable Trust V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380

Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381

Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382

Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383

Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/S Jaydeepsinh K Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384

Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385

KAMUBEN SOMAJI BHAVAJI THAKORE v/s STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 386

CHANDUBHAI FAKIRBHAI PATEL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 387

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER (JULY-SEPTEMBER)

Witness Saw Accused Near Deceased, Blood Stained Weapon Recovered: Gujarat High Court Accepts Circumstantial Evidence To Affirm Murder Conviction

Case Title: Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(Koli Patel) V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253

The High Court recently affirmed the conviction of a man under Section 302 IPC for Murder, while observing that the chain of circumstantial evidence was completed by the prosecution with cogent evidence, to bring home his guilt.

The Bench comprising Justices Vipul Pancholi and Rajendra Sareen heavily relied on the statement made by a prosecution witness who saw the accused near the cot of the deceased with a weapon as also the recovery of a blood-stained Dharia from the accused.

Municipalities Empowered In Law To Retire Employees At Age Of 55 Yrs By Giving Three Months' Notice: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: chief officer v/s decd. Shree solanki kanubhai danabhai through legal heirs manjulaben w/o kanubhai solanki

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 254

The High Court has upheld the power of municipalities under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder to retire a municipal servant at any time on or after he attains the age of 55 years on giving him three months notice.

A bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observed,

"It was within the powers of the municipality in exercise of powers under Sec.271 to frame rules. Proviso to Rule 5 indicates that the action can be taken by a municipality against an employee where employee reaches the age of superannuation. This, of course, is subject to he being given three months notice and notice pay in lieu thereof."

Heroin Smuggling Case: Gujarat High Court Grants 3 Days' Bail To Accused Rafik Adam Sumra On Daughter's Nikaah

Case Title: Rafik Adam Sumra V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 255

The Gujarat High Court has granted temporary bail of three days to Rafik Adam Sumra, accused in the infamous heroin smuggling case of 2018, for attending the marriage ceremony of his daughter.

A Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi and Justice Sandeep Bhatt ordered that Rafik shall be released on temporary bail during the period from July 16 to July 18, 2022, with police escort, on executing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- before the Jail authority. The cost of police escort shall be borne by him.

Debt Recovery Tribunal Can't Go Beyond Reliefs Sought For By A Party: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Gujarat State Financial Corporation Ltd 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 Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot go beyond and grant prayers that are not even sought for by a party before it.

While hearing a petition filed by the original defendant against the impugned order in favour of original applicant (respondent herein), Justice Vaibhavi D Nanavati observed,

"The submissions advanced by Mr. Asthavadi, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant requires consideration as can be seen from the above prayers there is no such prayer as prayed for by the respondent No.1 as granted by the DRTII. It appears that DRT-II has erred in granting the prayer which was not prayed for even by the respondent No.1...Accordingly this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 27.06.2014."

'No Writ Can Lie On The Principle That Candidates Have A Legitimate Expectation To Know Their Raw Marks Or Attempt Answer Keys': Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jayesh Nebhabhai Kambariya V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 257

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that no writ can lie on the principle that candidates have a legitimate expectation to get their raw marks known or attempt answer keys. It was further remarked, "merely because the apprehension of the petitioners is that they had got less marks than expected is no ground on which a challenge to the adoption of normalization procedure can be sustained."

Scolding Employee To Maintain Office Discipline Does Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide U/S 306 IPC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal V/S The State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 258

The Gujarat High Court has observed that an employer scolding its employee to maintain discipline in the office would not amount to the former abetting the suicide of latter and it would not constitute an offence within the fold of Section 306 of IPC.

Justice Nirzar Desai further held that if bona fide action of maintaining discipline in the office is registered as an 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 maintain office discipline and out of fear or being hypersensitive, if an employee commits suicide, that would not constitute an offence attracting provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code as the action taken by the employer was in good faith to maintain office discipline."

'Bank Has Symbolic Possession Of Mortgaged Properties': Gujarat High Court Refuses To Cancel 2016 Bail Order For Non-Repayment 10 Cr Loan

Case Title: Nasik Merchants' Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V/s State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 259

The Gujarat High Court has recently declined to cancel the bail of the Respondent-Accused for offences under Sections 406 and 420 added with Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the ground that the Applicant-Bank had already taken 'symbolic possession' of certain properties long back. However, the Bank had not proceeded further in almost six years regarding these properties.

The High Court, therefore, felt that it should not interfere with the order of the Sessions Court which had granted bail to the Accused vide an order of 2016.

S.25 NDPS Act | Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To Senior Citizen Over Recovery Of Poppy Straw Worth ₹16.6 Lakh From His Property

Case Title: Narughar Songhar Goswami V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 260

The Gujarat High Court has refused regular bail under Section 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 citizen was not at the scene of offence or in the nearby vicinity, however, since he was the property owner, Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted to the case.

Private Negotiations Between Two Govt Agencies For Land Transfer Does Not Determine Its True Market Value: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India V/S Original Claimants & 3 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 261

The Gujarat High Court has held that private negotiations between government agencies for land transfer does not determine the true market value of the land.

Thus, the High Court expressed doubt over an Arbitral award which granted compensation in favour of the private landowners ('Claimants'), whose lands were acquired by Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India, based on rates fixed by the Railway Administration for acquiring certain state government lands for a Freight Corridor, in a nearby village.

IBC | Operational Creditor's Failure To File Its Claim Before Approval Of Resolution Plan Extinguishes Such Claim: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Garden Silk Mills Limited & 1 Other(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 an insolvent company having undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, that failure of an Operational Creditor to file its claim with the Resolution Professional during the insolvency resolution process or to challenge the Resolution plan before NCLT/NCLAT, extinguishes its claim upon approval of the Resolution Plan.

Gujarat Mining Rules | Seized Property Must Be Produced Before Court Along With Written Complaint After Expiry Of 45 Days: High Court

Case Title: Solanki Haribhai Arjanbhai V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 263

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that it is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties before the Court on expiry of 45 days from the 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 seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated and consequently, the property will have to be released to the person from whom it was seized without bank guarantee, the court added.

Gujarat Mining Rules | Locking Of Online ATR Account / Suspension Of Transit Permit Must Be Supported By Reasons In Writing: High Court

Case Title: Dhanrajsinh Gambhirsinh Thakore V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 264

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, transit permit can be suspended/ locking of online ATR account can be ordered for alleged violations only for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Justice AS Supehia observed,

"Respondent authorities, at the first instance before locking the ATR account of the petitioner are supposed to give a show-cause notice and hearing and after considering such a representation or the defence of the petitioner, would have to pass the order suspending or locking the online ATR account of petitioner."

Suspension Period Cannot Be Treated 'Wholly Unjustified' In Case Of Partial Exoneration: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Narendrasinh Dosabhai Gohil V/S Managing Director & 2 Other(S)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 265

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petition filed by an employee seeking that his period of suspension be treated as 'regular' on the ground that the Petitioner had been charge-sheeted and was only partially exonerated 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 can be treated to be wholly unjustified and whether he should therefore be given such proportion of pay and allowance as the competent authority would prescribe by a specific order...Here is a case where on a charge-sheet being issued, the order of penalty was passed. Obviously therefore not exonerating the petitioner from the charge. It was therefore, within the right of the employer to treat the period of suspension as such reinstating the petitioner in service with a condition that orders of regularization of suspension is kept in abeyance."

Gravity Of Offence Cannot Overweigh Legal Proof: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of 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 State Government challenging the acquittal of a person accused under the POCSO Act, citing lack of evidence. A bench of Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendran Sareen observed:

"Here in this case it is to be noted that on one side the complainant has alleged against the respondent accused regarding sexual assault upon her victim daughter and merely after a span of 3 to 4 days she has alleged against her own husband regarding sexual assault upon her victim daughter. As such, two contradictory versions have been stated by the complainant within a span of 4 days against two persons and both the allegations are based on suspicion and doubt, one against the present respondent accused and another against her husband. As such, mere suspicion and doubt cannot be considered to be cogent and convincing proof to prove the allegations."

'No Locus': Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CID Probe Into Alleged Corruption & Irregularities In Agriculture Produce Market

Case Title: Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 267

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea seeking probe by specialized agency like CID (Economic Offences Wing) or Anti-Corruption Bureau into alleged corruption and financial irregularities of "millions of rupees" in the Agriculture Produce Market.

Justice Nirzar Desai observed that the complainant (Applicant herein) could not establish his locus standi and that he could not point out as to how he is aggrieved by the alleged offences committed by the persons named in the application.

Principle Of Promissory Estoppel Applies After Customer Acts On Basis Of Bank's One Time Settlement Scheme: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S Harekrushna Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & 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 on the basis of offer made by a Bank under its One Time Settlement scheme, the principle of promissory estoppel applies and the latter is estopped from acting to the detriment of the former.

"It is clear that the principle of promissory estoppel applies. The bank by its conduct of offering an OTS settlement intended to create legal relations which the petitioners had acted upon in light of the promise made and paid the amount on or before 30th of December 2017. This action was apparently accepted in principle by the bank as not only for the title clearance certificate but valuation reports letters were written by by the bank to the advocates and the valuers. The amounts were paid and accepted by the bank and once the petitioners had acted upon on the promise set out by the bank, the bank cannot be allowed to go back on its proposal on the basis of a letter dated 28th August 2018 stating that the scheme of OTS was not applicable as the cases of the petitioners was reported as fraud."

Dispute Referred To Arbitration Under MSME Act; Court Can Extend The Mandate Of Arbitrator Under Section 29A Of A&C Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s Magirsha Industries versus M/s Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that even in cases where the dispute has been referred to arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Court is empowered 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 held that in view of Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the A&C Act would be applicable once the dispute is referred to arbitration under the MSME Act, and hence, the Court can extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the A&C Act.

S.91/92 Evidence Act Exclude Oral Evidence, Forbid Proving Contents Of Writing Otherwise Than By Writing Itself: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Navinchandra Somchand, Died Through His 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 relationship between Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, while holding that the provisions in effect supplement each other.

Section 91 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents) relates to lead evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties, which are reduced to form of documents. This Section merely forbids proving the contents of writing otherwise than by writing itself.

Section 92 (Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement) deals with conclusiveness of the documentary evidence and provides exceptions in which oral evidence against documentary evidence can be admitted.

Employees Can't Be Held Responsible If Employer Grants Terminal Benefits In Excess Of Their Entitlement: Gujarat High Court Quashes Recovery Order

Case Title: Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 271

The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation directing recovery of Rs. 63,878 from its former employee on the ground that the terminal benefits were wrongly granted to him at a higher pay-scale than he was entitled to.

Justice Biren Vaishnav relied on several decisions of the High Court where it was held that when employees are paid excess amount, not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and if such employees had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to, they can't be held responsible for a mistake on part of the employer.

Whether 'Appropriate Govt' In Industrial Dispute Concerning Person Working At 'Mine Office' Is Centre Or State Depends On Nature Of Work: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Rajendrasinh Velubha Jadeja V/S General Manager (Project)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272

The Gujarat High Court has recently explained that when a dispute is raised by employees working in a mine or an office of the mine or ones employed in a mine, it needs to be determined whether the dispute has a nexus to activities in a mine. Only when the industrial dispute concerns a mine can the appropriate government be deemed to be the Central Government as per Sec 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench explained.

National E-Assessment Centre Acted Thick Skinned: Gujarat High Court

Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 12864 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 273

The Gujarat High Court held that it was pandemic time when the department should have adopted a liberal approach in refusing the request for time for filing objections to the draft assessment order and finally passing the assessment order. The department acted thick-skinned.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bharghav D. Karia has observed that the assessment proceedings were remanded to the Assessing Officer to be taken up afresh from the stage of the draft assessment order. The court directed the assessing officer to pass an appropriate order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply.

When Substantial Evidence Is Lacking To Connect Accused With Crime, Other Corroborative Evidence Loses Significance: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274

The Gujarat High Court has held that where substantial evidence to connect an accused with the crime is lacking, other corroborative evidence loses its significance.

In light of the aforesaid, a Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen upheld an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a criminal case under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

Employee's Termination Without Departmental Inquiry Based On Incomplete & Non-Specific Show Cause Notice Violative Of S.25G Of ID Act: Gujarat HC

Case Title: abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltd v/s nathabhai bhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275

The Gujarat High Court observed that in case of an incomplete show cause notice, to which the respondent workman had no occasion to file his response as expected by the employer, inquiry by issuing specific charge sheet is necessary.

Justice AY Kogje thereby held that when the show cause notice /charge was not specific enough for the workman to respond, termination without proper departmental inquiry was a breach of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Gujarat High Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail Granted To Rape Accused 5 Yrs Ago

Case Title: Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276

The Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to a rape accused five years ago, stating that all this time the applicant-victim did not take a stand that seriousness of offence has not been considered by the Court below and that the accused has not misused his liberty nor violated any condition.

The accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 328, 395, 397, 344, 406, 420, 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Consent Of Complainant Prima Facie Established, FIR Lodged With Delay Of 2.5 Yrs: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Rape-Accused

Case Title: Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 277

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a rape-accused while observing that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is of the prima-facie view that the alleged act was consensual in nature.

A bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora observed that the record and photographs of the parties indicate that the parties were in good terms and the applicant was keenly interested to tie the knot with the victim.

'Lost Sense Of How To Speak & Behave': Gujarat High Court Denies Relief To Registered Society Manager Terminated Over Insubordination & Misconduct

Case Title: Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278

Expressing shock towards the misconduct and negligence displayed by the Petitioner, a Manager of a registered Society, in his duties which 'tarnished the image of the society', the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the application for quashing the communication regarding his termination.

Bank Can't Refuse NOC For Release Of Mortgaged Property After Receiving Sale Consideration From Third Party: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles A Proprietorship Firm Thorugh Its Prorprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/S Syndicate Bank Surat Main Branch

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279

The Gujarat High Court has held that once the Bank agrees to sell a property mortgaged with it by a loan defaulter and a third party pays full consideration for purchase of said property after entering into a valid agreement with the Bank, the latter cannot turn back and refuse the title deed, no objection certificate/no due certificate.

Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati thus directed the Respondent, Syndicate bank, to release the charge over the property in question and hand over the original title documents of the property to the Applicant (purchaser) within two weeks.

Can't Maintain Proceedings U/S 34 Arbitration Act Before Two Fora: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S Sanganer Enviro Project Development V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280

The Gujarat High Court, while dismissing the Civil Application of the Petitioner which challenged the award of the relevant arbitration, has observed that the Petitioner had 'conveniently' initiated two proceedings- one before the instant Bench and another before the District Court under Sec 34. Keeping in view this circumstance, the High Court rejected the petition.

A Party Can Withdraw Its Consent For Reference To Arbitration Under Section 89 Of The CPC Anytime Before The Court Acts Upon Such Consent: Gujarat High Court

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 a party can withdraw its consent for reference to arbitration under Section 89 of CPC anytime before the court has acted upon such a reference.

The Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was dealing with a Special Civil Application under Article 227 against an order of the Civil Judge whereby the application jointly given by the parties to the proceedings to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 89(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') came to be rejected on the original plaintiff, who initially consented for the same, withdrew the consent for sending it to the Arbitrator.

Article 19(1)(e) Not Available To Foreigners: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Interfere With Order For Deportation Of Pakistani National

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 writ petition of a Pakistani citizen challenging the decision of the Superintendent of Police which directed him to leave India within 24 hours of receipt of the notice. Justice AS Supehia also reiterated:

"In the present case, indubitably, the petitioner is a Pakistan citizen and as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, he cannot invoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, hence, he has no right to enter and remain within the territories of India. He is bound to the act, as per the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondent authorities."

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Against Outsourcing Work & Administration Of 'Mid Day Meal' Scheme

Case Title: Madyahan Bhojan Yojna Karmachari Sangh V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 283

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition against outsourcing the work and administration of the Mid Day Meal Scheme to private players.

A single bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the objective of Resolution dated 09.11.1984, which first introduced the concept of Mid Day Meal Schemes in the schools run under the State Primary Schools, was to provide nutritional support to students of the primary stage in villages and in areas of Municipal Corporations. At that point, the government was considering a proposal to hand over the implementation of the Scheme to Non Government Organizations on pilot basis.

'No Iota Of Evidence': Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Counterfeiting Currency Worth ₹2000 In 1995

Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Raib Jusab Sama Musalman

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 284

The Gujarat High Court has declined to overturn the order acquitting Respondent who was accused of counterfeiting currency notes while noting that 'no iota of evidence' came on record to point out the guilt of the Respondent-Accused.

The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen concluded that no incriminating evidence was available against the Accused and that merely based on a Transfer Warrant, the Accused had been implicated in the case.

Industrial Disputes Act Is Social Welfare Legislation: Gujarat High Court Directs Labour Court To Re-Examine Order Refusing 'Interest' To Workers

Case Title: Sailesh Shantilal Lunavia V/S Carborandum Universal Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 285

While reiterating that Courts have a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare to further the statutory goal, the Gujarat High Court has directed the Labour Court at Jamnagar to re-examine the issue of awarding interest to the Petitioner workmen.

The Petitioners had submitted that there is no discussion on the issue as to why the interest was not awarded to them.

Justice Biren Vaishnav had taken up both Special Civil Applications for the final hearing and relied extensively on Manager, Naaz Cinema Vs. Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumadiya w/d of Rameshbhai Raijibhai Ghumadiya [2011(2) G.L.H.523] adjudicated by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.

Food Adulteration Act | Statutory Procedure For Drawing Samples Is Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Reverse Acquittal

Case Title: State Of Gujarat - For & On Behalf 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 in a 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 Ashokkumar Joshi found that the Sanitary Inspector while collecting the sample of soji had failed to seal the product in a wooden box and had not made three parts of the 600 grams of samples which was mandatory under Rule 14 and Sec 16(b) of the Act.

Una Flogging Case 2016: Gujarat HC Grants Bail To 4 Accused, Orders State To Make Appropriate Arrangements For Conclusion Of Trial

Case title - Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Jadav Versus The State Of Gujarat & 1 other

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287

The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to four key accused in the July 2016 Una Dalig Flogging case. This is the first time in the last six years that the court has granted bail to the accused in the case.

The court observed that the accused have already served nearly six years of imprisonment, and there has been little progress in the trial of the case. The accused were allegedly a part of a group of cow vigilantes who attacked some Dalit men for skinning a dead cow in Una on July 11, 2016.

Oral Dying Declaration Which Is Reliable & Not Controverted By Defence Is Admissible In Evidence: Gujarat High Court

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 made it clear that a dying declaration cannot be said to be inadmissible merely because it was given orally. A single bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that an "oral dying declaration" given by the deceased, which is not controverted by the defence in cross-examination, is admissible in evidence.

Holding thus, the High Court allowed the State's appeal and overturned the decision of the Sessions Court acquitting the husband and in-laws of the deceased for abetting her to commit suicide by harassment for dowry.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Can Recall Its Own Order If Claimant Plays Fraud: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: the new india assurance co. Ltd v/s thakor kanaji viraji

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289

The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that when a party before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case claimant, plays a fraud with the Tribunal, the Tribunal is empowered to recall its order by which it granted relief.

Justice Gita Gopi observed,

"The review application would survive having fallen under 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 Tribunal had power to recall its own order."

Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Forging Records To Grab Land Vacated After Migration Of Owners To Pakistan In 1971

Case Title: Rayma Adham Sela Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 290

The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order of trial court acquitting one Rayma Adham Sela accused of forging documents to show himself as the legal heir of original landowners who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1971-72.

A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen was told that after the original owners of the land and house left for Pakistan, the accused created false, fabricated and concocted affidavits and entered their names in the revenue records by committing offence of cheating and forgery.

Article 21| 'Right To Life Extends To Foreign Nationals': Gujarat HC Permits Canadian Woman To Undergo Kidney Transplant Without Domicile Certificate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 291

Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in Chairman Railway Board and Ors. vs. Chandrima Das and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 465, Justice AS Supehia of the Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity, and the term 'person' used in Art 21 extends to citizens and foreign nationals, alike.

The High Court made these remarks in the background of a petition by an ailing Canadian woman who was being denied a kidney transplant basis the lack of a Domicile Certificate. The Respondent authorities were insisting upon the woman first obtain a Domicile Certificate in order for her to undertake the necessary procedure for kidney transplantation.

Powers U/S 482 CrPC To Be Exercised Sparingly, Particularly When Section 302 Is Involved: Gujarat High Court

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 declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR particularly, when the offence of Sec 302 was involved.

Justice Mehta relied on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and other 'celebrated judgements' of the Supreme Court to conclude that the power of quashing FIR should be exercised sparingly, with circumspect, in the 'rarest of rare cases'.

State Action Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction In Contractual Setting: Gujarat High Court

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 or its instrumentality enters into a contract with a contractor or bidder, they would be governed by the terms of the contract and ordinarily both the parties would be governed by the law that governs the terms and conditions of the contract. It added, that in such circumstances, the acts of the State would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri held thus while dismissing the writ petition filed the Petitioner, a manufacturer in the healthcare sector having entered into a contract with the State for supply of certain medicine, challenging the Risk Purchase Recovery Orders issued by the Gujarat Medical Services (Respondent No. 2).

Yes Bank Is A Private Entity, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Universal Hospital A1 Ain Llc V/S M/S Yes Bank Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 294

The Gujarat High Court has held that Yes Bank Ltd is a private bank and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A single bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed that private financial institutions, carrying commercial activities or business would not come under the scope of 'State' as defined under Article 12, although, they are performing public duties. It highlighted that such that private financial institutions do not receive any financial assistance from the Government and and no state protection is offered to such institutions.

Court Can Interfere With Preventive Detention Order At "Pre-Execution Stage" If Based On Vague, Extraneous Grounds: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Anilsinh Laghubha Jadeja V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 285

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that preventive detention orders can be interfered with at pre-execution stage, i.e., before the person accused is detained, if the said order is passed on vague, irrelevant grounds.

The Petitioner had filed the instant application since he apprehended being detained under Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA Act) on the pretext of the FIRs for offences punishable under Sections 65AE, 81 and 98(2) of Prohibition Act. He primarily contested that his alleged activity did not affect the maintenance of public adversely.

Gujarat High Court Stays IBBI's Order Requiring Resolution Professional To Undergo Pre-Registration Educational Course From IPA

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agarwal v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 296

The Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Justice A.S. Supehia, while adjudicating a writ petition in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), has stayed the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of IBBI against the Resolution Professional, requiring the latter to undergo pre-registration educational course from the IPA of which he is a member. The next date of hearing is 09.09.2022.

S.226 - 228 CrPC Meant To Ensure Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Case, Parties Must Not Indulge In Dilatory Tactics: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Gopalbhai Naranbhai @ Narubhai Bhagubhai Ratadiya V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 287

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a revision petition seeking reconsideration of application filed by Petitioner-Accused under Section 227 CrPC for discharge from a murder and assault case.

The Bench comprising Justice Samir Dave noted that the charge and framing of charge have been deferred time and again due to several applications moved by the petitioner along with co-accused which ultimately prolonged the trial. It observed,

"Present petition is nothing but a delaying tactic as the application seems to have been deferred on several occasions, whereas the co-accused seem to have been assassinating and languishing in the prison wherein the charge till date has not been framed or followed by the commencement of the trial due to several applications moved by the petitioner...The very purpose and the object of following the provisions of Sections 226 to 228 of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure the expeditious disposal of the Sessions Case so that the accused is discharged if there is not sufficient material against him or he can be tried quickly by following the due procedure laid down under Chapter-28 of the Cr.P.C."

Remedies Under SARFAESI Act Are Expeditious & Effective: Gujarat High Court Declines Writ Petition Against Rejection Of Early Hearing By DRT

Case Title: m/s. Mahee cotex v/s central bank of india, authorised officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 288

The Gujarat High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in a petition challenging order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which rejected Petitioner's application for preponement of hearing, fearing dispossession from property.

Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective and thus court must refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in such matters.

Workman In Continuous Service For Years Without Any Break Can't Be Denied Benefit U/S 25F ID Act Merely Because Of Contractual Engagement: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Jamnagar Municipal Corporation V/S Avdesh Kishorbhai Solanki

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 289

The Gujarat High Court has held that a workman cannot be denied the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act which prescribes conditions precedent to retrenchment merely because he is engaged on contract basis, given that he rendered continuous services for several years, without any break.

In this light, Justice AY Kogje dismissed the petition filed by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation challenging the award of the Labour Court which directed reinstatement of one such contractual workman, whose services were the terminated due to outsourcing of contract work.

Telegraph Act | Suit Over Insufficiency Of Compensation Maintainable In Civil Court: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: power grid corporation of india limited. V/s manojbhai dashrathbhai patel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 300

The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, determination of full compensation to the aggrieved can be done by the civil court if the dispute is regarding the insufficiency of compensation paid under Section 10(d) of the Act.

Justice Umesh Trivedi found that such claims need not be filed before the District Judge as contended by the petitioner authority, 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 of application against insufficiency of compensation. For non-payment of compensation under 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 trees and damage to standing crops."

Cases Of Civil Nature Can Be 'Quashed' In Interest Of Justice: Gujarat High Court Reiterates Distinction B/w Sections 320 & 482 CrPC

Case Title.: Kamleshkumar Mohanji Methana V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 301

While allowing a revision application under Section 397 of CrPC seeking quashing of a judgement convicting the Petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Gujarat High Court reiterated the distinction between Sections 482 and Sec 320 of the Code.

Section 320 CrPC prescribes power of Court to compound certain offences. Section 482 CrPC is inherent power of High Court. The Bench of Justice Samir Dave emphasized that compounding of offences is not the same as quashing. It reiterated:

"In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."

Reimbursement Of Medical Claim By Govt Employees Should Not Be Denied Mechanically: Gujarat High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Gulamkadar Kasambhai Shaikh v. The State Of Gujarat Thru The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 302

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Government employee is entitled to avail the benefits of medical facilities without any fetters, and that their claim for reimbursement should not be denied by the State mechanically.

The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav extensively relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Chanrakant Kantilal Dave v. State of Gujarat to order full reimbursement of expenses borne by the Petitioner herein during his Angioplasty. The bench reiterated:

"It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his lifetime or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit 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 patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated."

[De-Recognition Of Private School] DEO Required To Take Steps To Declare Eligible Employees 'Surplus' & Absorb Them In Other Schools: Gujarat HC

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 any private school is de-recognized, the District Educational Officer is required to take steps for declaring the eligible school staff as 'surplus' and absorb them in other schools.

The clarification comes in light of a State policy that whenever the employees of private secondary school are required to be retrenched either due to the closure of classes or due to the closure of school, if they fulfill the criteria prescribed in the G.R.s then they are not required to face actual termination, but by declaring them surplus Government of Gujarat extends protection to their services and they are absorbed in any other aided registered private secondary school.

[Anganwadi Promotions] Date On Which Procedure Commences & Not When Resolutions Are Framed Is Relevant For Deciding Entitlement: Gujarat High Court

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 by Anganwadi workers alleging that they were not promoted to the post of 'Mukhya Sevika' on account of discrimination between those working at the District Panchayat level and those working under the Municipal Corporation.

It was alleged that Anganwadi Workers from District Panchayats were elevated to the aforesaid post while those from the Municipal Corporation were deemed ineligible.

S.173(8) CrPC | Power Of Further Investigation Available Upto "Pre-Trial Stage" & Not Beyond That: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Poonam Madha Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 305

The Gujarat High Court has held that the power of Court to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC is available only up to "pre-trial stage" and once the trial commences, such power cannot be exercised. Justice Ashokkumar Joshi also reiterated:

"It is trite principle of law that with a view to fill up the lacunae in investigation, such powers of directing further investigation cannot be exercised…"

Workmen Challenging Their Alleged Termination Can Be Directed To Deposit Ex-Gratia Compensation Until Final Disposal: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Raja Laxman Chopada v. Aditaya Birala Nova Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 306

The Gujarat High Court has held that where the disengagement of workmen by an employer is under dispute, the former claiming illegal termination and the latter asserting voluntary resignation arrangement, the Labour Court may direct deposit of ex-gratia amount in the interim.

Justice Biren Vaishnav thus upheld a Labour Court's decision directing the workmen to deposit the ex-gratia amount until final disposal of the dispute between the parties.

Numerous Preventive Detention Orders Passed Day In & Day Out Relying On "Stale Material": Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To NDPS Accused

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 the detaining authority under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 for passing numerous detention orders "day in and day out" by merely relying on "stale material" against a person.

The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen observed,

"Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act...without drawing distinction between "law and order" problem and "public order" problem as mentioned under the PASA Act."

Medical Reimbursement Guaranteed Under Right To Life: Gujarat High Court Provides Relief To Retd. Teacher Of Grant-In-Aid Primary School

Case Title: Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 308

The Gujarat High Court directed the State authorities to reimburse the medical expenses for the pacemaker implantation undergone by a retired primary school teacher ('Petitioner'), observing that medical reimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life.

The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav held that the Petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement under Gujarat Civil Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015.

Art.19(1)(g)| Fee Revision Committee Can Verify Expenditure But Can't Sit In Management's Chair To Determine Fee Structure Of Self-Financed School: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Ambe Public School v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 309

The Gujarat High Court has recently cautioned the Fee Revisional Committee ('FRC') that it should keep in mind the fundamental rights of the Self-Financed Schools under Article 19(1)(g) to run and charge fees as they deem fit.

While the FRC must see that such fee does not amount to profiteering by schools, it cannot 'sit in the chair of the Management' to determine the fee structure because each school has its own unique method of imparting education, Justice Bhargav Karia said.

Bullet Train Project | Wild Allegations Of Fraud In Distribution Of Compensation Without Cogent Material: Gujarat HC Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction

Case Title: Savitaben Mangalbhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 310

The Gujarat High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking equal distribution of compensation as per Sec 31(2)(b) in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the Petitioners alleging mischief on behalf of the State authorities should have initiated proceedings before appropriate forum when they first became aware of the mischief. However, the instant petition was filed a year later without cogent material or clear pleadings.

Citizenship Exclusive Domain Of Centre, Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Question Of Renunciation: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Akil Valibhai Piplodwala v. Central Government

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 311

The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question about citizenship of a person and that the said question falls within the exclusive domain of the Central government.

Justice Nisha Thakore held thus in context of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act 1955 which provides that question whether any citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country shall be deter­mined by the prescribed authority.

Person Working In Supervisory Capacity Cannot Raise "Industrial Dispute": Gujarat High Court Quashes Reinstatement Order

Case Title: Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. & 1 other(s) v. Presiding Officer & 2 Other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 312

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a person working in "supervisory" capacity cannot raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje further made it clear that while deciding whether such person is a workman or not, the Labour Court ought to carefully consider the evidence placed on record and there is no exhaustive list of work to differentiate between the workman and the management employee.

Writ Petition Against Private University Not Maintainable, Remedy For Alleged Arbitrary Termination Lies Under Civil Law: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Shambhavi Kumari V/S Sabarmati University & 3 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 313

The Gujarat High Court has declined to intervene in a writ petition seeking reinstatement with full backwages and benefits filed by an Assistant Professor against the Sabarmati University, a private university. Justice Bhargav Karia clarified that the dispute regarding termination was 'in the realm of a private contract' and therefore, held:

"…if at all there is an alleged arbitrary action on the part of the respondent, the same would give cause to the petitioner to initiate civil action before the Civil Court but in the facts of the present case, the writ petition against the private educational institution governed by the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 would not be maintainable."

Gujarat High Court Directs CBIC To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight

Case Title: M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 314

The Gujarat High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to refund the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on ocean freight within six weeks along with the statutory rate of interest.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in which GST on ocean freight was struck down.

Industrial Dispute Act| Person Working in the Capacity of 'Consultant' Cannot Be Deemed 'Workman': Guj HC Quashes Reinstatement Order

Case Title: Santram Spinners Limited V/S Babubhai Magandas Patel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 315

The Gujarat High Court has struck down the order of the Labour Court which had held that the Respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement along with 20% backwages in the Petitioner-institute. The High Court, 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.

Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 62 Yrs Old POCSO Accused Citing "Improvements" In Minor Prosecutrix's Version

Case Title: Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 316

The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old, accused of sexuall assaulting a 17 years old after intoxicating her.

The man was booked under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

While granting relief, the High Court took into account several factors such as improvement in Prosecutrix's version, subsequent conduct of the accused, etc.

Court Must Be Satisfied Of Prima Facie Case Against Accused While Framing Charges, Reasons Not To Be Recorded: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317

The Gujarat High Court has held that only a prima facie involvement of the accused in an alleged crime is required for framing of charges and the Court need not make an evaluation of evidence or record reasons for the same.

Justice Samir Dave referred to Omwati Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 AAR 394 (SC) to reiterate the circumstances in which the Court may discharge the Accused:

"(i) If upon consideration that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons.

(ii) Where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage."

Electricity Connection Cannot Be Denied Only Because Dispute Regarding Ownership Of Land Is Pending: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/S Pgvcl Through The Deputy Engineer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318

The Gujarat High Court has clarified that occupiers of a land cannot be denied electricity connection only because a dispute regarding ownership of the land is pending.

Justice AS Supehia referred to a division bench judgment stating that right and title and ownership or right of occupancy has no nexus with grant of electrical connection to a consumer.

Electricity Company Does Not Require Landowner's Consent For Laying Down Overhead Transmission Lines: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S Managing Director/ General Manager (Legal Cell)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319

The Gujarat High Court has held that an electricity company does not require the consent of a private landowner to lay overhead high tension transmission lines and that at most, such landowner may claim compensation for any damage that may be sustained during the process.

A single Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav heavily relied on a division bench judgment in Gujarat State Electricity Transmission Corporation 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 all walks of life. Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right has to yield to the Articles 14 and 21 respectively of the Constitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals, enshrined in the basic structure of the Constitution of India."

[Custodial Deaths] Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Gram Rakshak Dal Jawan, Notes Genitals Of Deceased Were Injured With Mobile Charger Cable

Case Title: Shambhubhai Devrajbhai Jaru V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 320

In a case involving custodial deaths of two persons due to alleged police brutality, the Gujarat High Court has declined bail to a Gram Rakshak Dal Jawan (GRD Jawan) discharging duties at the Police Station.

As per the investigation, the deceased were beaten with sticks, belts, fist and kicks, threatened with electric current, rags of inflammable liquid were placed the on their bodies, and their genitals were injured with the mobile charger cable.

Motor Accident Tribunals May Permit Claimants To Prematurely Withdraw Compensation From FD To Meet "Personal Exigencies Of Life": Gujarat HC

Case Title: Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/S Govindbhai M Prajapati

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 321

The Gujarat High Court has held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals may permit claimants, whose compensation is invested in fixed deposits, to prematurely withdraw the same to meet the "exigencies of life".

Justice Gita Gopi thus quashed the order of a Tribunal which had rejected the Petitioner's application for premature withdrawal of the Fixed Deposit made in his favour in the Central Bank of India.

Gujarat Mineral Rules | Seized Vehicle Liable To Be Released If FIR For Contravention Not Registered Within 45 Days Of Seizure: High Court

Case Title: Minalben Satishbhai Solanki V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 322

The Gujarat High Court has held that it is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and seized properties upon expiry of the 45 days period specified under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

In the absence of such an exercise, the seized vehicle will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for bank guarantee.

Students Can't Be Faulted For Pharmacy Council's Failure To Approve Medical Stores For Imparting Training: Gujarat HC Grants Relief To Diploma Holders

Case Title: Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 323

The Gujarat High Court has come to the rescue of D.Pharm students who were denied registration as 'Pharmacist' by the State Pharmacy Council on the ground that they have not undertaken training from medical stores approved the the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.

A single bench of Justice AS Supehia noted that the Pharmacy Council of India has not approved any medical store under the Regulation for the purpose of imparting practical training to the students of Diploma in Pharmacy Course like the present petitioners.

Gujarat High Court Permits 'Idea Cellular' To Submit Soft Copies Of 'Customers Activation Forms' After Originals Destroyed In Fire

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 to sympathetically consider the case of Idea Cellular Limited which is unable to submit physical copies of Customers Activation Forms ('CAF') after the same were destroyed in a fire at its warehouse in 2011.

Justice AS Supehia observed:

"It is clarified that since the petitioners are not having original physical copy of such forms, if they are called upon to compare the scanned copy with the physical forms, the same would be an utterly impossible task and cannot be performed and hence, the respondents shall accept the scanned copy of such CAFs having digitally signed by the petitioners."

Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Over A 'Dead Cause Of Action' Barred By Law Of Limitation: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Dipakkumar Nathabhai Patel V/S Narmadaben Dhirajlal Radadia & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 325

The Gujarat High Court has held that a party cannot be allowed to seek appointment of arbitrator over a "dead" cause of action or to revive a claim which is barred by the Law of Limitation.

"Normally the issue of limitation being question of fact/s and the Law governing the same would be procedural, it would always be open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide based on the facts that may be unfolded in a given case. However, this Court exercising the power of referring the dispute to arbitration, would refuse to do so when it is manifest that claims are ex-facie time barred and dead or there is no subsisting dispute," Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed.

Gujarat High Court Allows 'Habeas Corpus' Petition By Younger Son Seeking Parents' Custody From Elder Brother

Case Title: Jayesh Manharlal Gandhi V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 326

The Gujarat High Court handed over the custody of an old and ailing couple to their younger son in a habeas corpus petition filed by the latter alleging mis-treatment and illegal detention of his parents by his elder brother, the Respondent.

A division bench of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Sandeep Bhatt expressed shock at the Respondent's conduct in chambers, labelling his mother as a "villain".

Non-Renewal Of Contract During Probation Does Not Amount To 'Retrenchment' Under Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Chief Executive & 1 Other(S) V/S Vanjibhai Laljibhai Chaudhary

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 327

The Gujarat High Court held that termination of service because of non-extension of probation does not amount to 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Consequently, Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside an order of the Labour Court reinstating the Respondent-workman to the position 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 a workman as a result of nonrenewal of a contract of the employment or termination on expiry in view of a stipulation as contained in the order therein."

Industrial Disputes Act | Violation Of Retrenchment Procedure U/S 25F & 25G Warrants Reinstatement, Not Mere Compensation: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Pagi V/S Deputy Executive Engineer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 328

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that once a Labour Court comes to the conclusion that Sections 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated, reinstatement of workman ought to follow.

The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing several petitions challenging the Labour Court's order wherein compensation of Rs. 72,000 was awarded to each of the Petitioner-workmen rather than reinstatement with backwages.

Workman Who Consents For Contractual Engagement Can't Turn Around & Seek Benefit U/S 25F Of Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: X v/s Indext/C Industrial Extension Cottage & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 329

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when there is a specific condition provided in the consent letter of employment that the appointment is on contract basis, then such workman cannot claim any benefit by contending that the Respondent establishment had breached Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Petitioner, claiming to be sexually harassed by her immediate superior, was agitating an order of the Labour Court by averring that the Labour Court should have held that the contractual appointment was a mere 'camouflage' and she was entitled to retrenchment compensation.

Motor Accident Claims | Child Victim Can't Be Equated To Non-Earning Adult, Must Be Compensated Under Non-Pecuniary Heads: Gujarat HC Reiterates

Case Title: Shaileshbhai Kandubhai Rathwa V/S Gurjar Shankarlal Devalal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 330

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that children who are victims of motor accidents stand on a different footing from non-earning adults in matter of compensation.

Recalling the Supreme Court's observations in Mallikarjun v/s Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, the Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi added that compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability.

Railway Tribunal Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Disputes Regarding Freight For Carriage Of Goods: Gujarat HC Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction

Case title: M/S Harsh Transport Private V/S Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 331

The Gujarat High Court has held that Railway Claims Tribunal is competent to adjudicate disputes regarding freight for carriage of goods and any dispute with regard to the same, including imposition of punitive charges.

The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia while hearing a writ petition raising a dispute with regard to freight charge demanded by the Railways from the petitioner between two stations. It was the case of the petitioner that it has paid regular freight charges to the Railway and the same were also accepted, and later on an extra freight charge was created.

Motor Accident | Literate Claimants Can Exercise Discretion, Tribunals Must Avoid Investing Their Money In FDRs Without Recording Reasons: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Dhavalkumar Ashokbhai Aghera v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 332

The Gujarat High Court has permitted the premature withdrawal of Fixed Deposit Receipt of the compensation awarded in Motor Accidents Claims to an Air Force person who intended to purchase a house for his permanent residence. Justice Gita Gopi stated:

"The deposited money are of the claimants. The literates can prudently exercise discretion, manage their funds and can individually decide about systematic planning for investing the money...In case of literate person, the Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adopting pedantic approach of investing the money in long term FDR without recording reasons for investing the money in long term deposits."

Possession/ Ownership Of Property Relevant Consideration For Proceedings Against Electricity Theft: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Balvantsinh Amarsinh Raj

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 333

The Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of a man under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for alleged unlicensed connection has made it clear that ownership/ possession of the property in question has to be factored into consideration.

Justice Ashokkumar Joshi rejected the State's appeal on several grounds, including the fact that the Police did not call for any certificate or documents to show the possession or ownership of accused for the so-called place of occurrence.

Bullet Train Project | High Court Cannot Usurp Powers Of Statutory Authority Under Fair Compensation In Land Acquisition Act: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Rekhaben Shashikant Gade V/S State Of Gujarat & 4 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 334

The Gujarat High Court has emphasised that Chapter VIII of the Land Acquisition Act has prescribed the establishment of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority which is 'couched with appropriate powers' to examine the issues which may arise in the process of land acquisition and compensation distribution.

Accordingly, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a woman seeking compensation for a property, purportedly owned by her at the time, acquired by the government for its 'Bullet Train Project'.

Merely Because Some Benefit Accrued To Litigant Due To Interim Order, They Cannot Claim Such Benefits When Litigation Ends Against Them: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Kumanbhai Chatrabhjubhaihujbhadaraniya & 18 other(s) v/s Manavadar Municipality & 14 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 335

The Gujarat High Court has clarified that merely because of some benefit has accrued to the litigant because of operation of interim orders, the litigant cannot claim such benefits when the litigation finally ends against them.

Considering this well-settled principle of law, Justice Biren Vaishnav declined to entertain a second appeal challenging the order of the Appellate Court in order to seek reinstatement in the Municipal Corporation. Justice Vaishnav upheld the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by affirming:

"What is therefore evident is that no fault can be found inasmuch as the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed no error in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the face of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947."

Person Not Appearing & Pleading Before Courts Not An "Advocate", Mere Enrollment With Bar Council Is Of No Consequence: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Pruthvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v/s State Of Gujarat & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 336

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a lawyer who does not 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 Council Rules, once the terms of employment do not require an advocate to plead and appear before the Courts, then during this period of employment, a person cannot be termed as an 'Advocate' because he is not practising as one.

Lok Rakshak Recruitment | Courts Cannot Ascertain Correctness Of Answer Keys, Must Be Left To Experts: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 337

The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not open for the Court to undertake the task of ascertaining the correctness of examination answer keys and the same must be left to the discretion of field experts.

"Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer," Justice Biren Vaishnav said while rejecting a petition assailing the correctness of the answer keys of examinations held for the posts of Lok Rakshaks (Class-III). The Single Judge Bench reiterated:

"…when there are conflicting views, judges are not expected to act as experts in the fields and overstep."

Prosecutrix Travelling & Enjoying Hospitality Of Accused After Alleging Rape Belies The Allegations: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail

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 of participating in gang-rape of the prosecutrix, after noting that the latter was on very friendly terms with the accused and even after levelling such grave allegations, she had been travelling with him and had been enjoying his hospitality.

Justice Rajendra Sareen observed,

"The facts narrated hereinabove prima facie reveal that the first informant was on very friendly terms with the applicant. It also appears that allegation of rape appears to be unjustified, since all the while the first informant, had been enjoying the hospitality of the applicant and other accused, as the case may be, and there does not appear to be any justification for the first informant in continuously accepting the hospitality of the accused, when according to the first informant, she was being subjected to such a heinous crime."

Statutory Power Of Authority Not Diluted Merely By Mention Of Wrong Provision While Exercising Such Power: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jaferkhan Allarakabhai Radhanpuri V/S Dholka Nagar Palika

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 339

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that merely because a wrong provision is quoted by the authority for exercising its power, it would not invalidate the order if it is shown that such an order could otherwise be passed under other provisions of the statute.

Accordingly, Justice AS Supehia declined to quash an order of eviction against the writ petitioner by holding:

"The petitioner has no right to keep on occupying the property of the respondent Nagarpalika even after the demise of his father, to whom the property was given on rent for 11 months in the year 1971. The provisions of the Eviction Act has been precisely invoked in the case of the petitioner and hence, no interference by this Court is necessitated."

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Person Alleged Of Creating Fictitious Entity To Pass Ineligible ITC

Citation: Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 340

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a person alleged to have created a fictitious entity to pass an ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The single bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora has directed the release of the applicant on bail, subjected to a deposition of Rs. 2 crore before the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division 8, Enforcement, Surat within a period of 2 months from the applicant's release.

Gujarat High Court Refuses Custody Of 2-Yr-Old To Mother Citing Voluntary Desertion, Child's Attachment To Father, Her Busy Work Schedule

Case Title: Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/O Jayprakash Nareshkumar Joshi V/S Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341

The Gujarat High Court declined custody of a minor son to his mother on the ground that her work schedule did not permit her to take care of the child as compared to the work schedule of the father.

Further, Justice Umesh Trivedi, while applying the principle of paramount interest of child, opined that the Appellant-mother had a step-mother and it was doubtful whether she would take care of the minor son.

'Allegations Of General Nature': Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Husband's Distant Relative Accused Of Taunting Complainant For Not Bringing Dowry

Case Title: Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342

The Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings for the offence of dowry harassment against a distant relative of the complainant's husband, observing that no specific incidents were alleged in the entire FIR and the allegation against him was purely "general in nature".

"Considering the fact that the applicant happens to be the distant relative of the husband of the complainant, it seems that the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to falsely implicate the applicant as accused just with a view to harass the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is purely of general in nature and considering the fact that the applicant stays at a different place, the registration of impugned FIR against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law," Justice Nirzar Desai said.

Impounding Of Instrument Sine Qua Non For Imposing Duty Under Bombay Stamp Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Century Tiles Through Director Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Patel V/S The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343

The Gujarat High Court has clarified that only after an instrument is lawfully impounded that the jurisdiction would vest in Stamp authorities to proceed under Section 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act for the purpose of charging document and assessing the same for stamp duty.

Justice AS Supehia, while relying on Tata Tele Services Limited Vs State of Gujarat, reiterated:

"Impounding of the instrument is sine qua non for exercise of the powers."

Motor Accident Death | Compensation Must Balance Fiscal Conditions Of Country Where Deceased Earned & Place Where Kin Live: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. Vinodkumar Bhanabhai Parmar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344

The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the kin of a deceased victim, who was earning in foreign currency prior to his death.

The Bench comprising Justices AJ Desai and Mauna Bhatt relied on Supreme Court's decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 281] where it was held:

"Where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. The place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne."

Revisional Power Can't Be Invoked With Unclean Hands: Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Of Caste Abuse Complaint In Counterblast To Electricity Theft Case

Case Title: Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345

The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court rejecting the complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached the court with 'clean hands' and was accused of theft of electricity.

Justice Samir Dave opined:

"It is settled law that the revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The process of law can be invoked by a principled and really aggrieved person who approaches the court with clean hands."

It added,

"The process of law cannot be allowed to be abused by a person who is facing trial for theft of Electricity and who himself avers such facts in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as indicate that he is guilty of committing theft of Electricity; by making baseless allegations against the officials of a PGVCL without any supporting material or evidence. Apparently, the revisionist has filed that complaint in order to put a counter pressure on the officials for taking undue advantage in plural cases of theft of electricity lodged against the complainant."

'No Shout For Help': Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of POCSO Accused, Disbelieves Prosecutrix's Birth Certificate

Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Pratap Prabhuram Devasi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 346

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused under the POCSO Act on the ground that the victim's allegations were unreliable and contained several omissions and contradictions.

While dismissing the State's appeal, a bench of Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen noted that at the time of alleged incident, both brothers of the prosecutrix were at home but, she did not shout for help. "Not only that, she did not disclose to any of her relatives, who came at her home despite she was asked."

Show Cause Notice U/S 93 Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act Can't Be Issued For Transactions Prior To 5 Yrs From Date Of Inquiry: High Court

Case Title: Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8 Other(S) V/S Registrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347

The Gujarat High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, has held that the show cause notice issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is not maintainable against the writ applicants on grounds of delay.

The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati noted that the writ-applicants were Chairman/ Managing Directors in the Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited in 2004. Since then, the Bank came to be closed and liquidated in November 2004 and all the relevant transactions pertained to a period before 2004. The impugned show cause notice was issued in July 2011 for transactions older than five years. Accordingly, the Single Judge Bench opined:

"The show cause notice which came to be issued by the respondent authority is also an undisputedly dated 26.07.2011. Therefore, all the transaction alleged against the writ applicants are beyond the period of five years from the date of show cause notice i.e. 26.07.2011 and also from the date of inquiry report i.e. dated 07.06.2011."

Licensing Authority Cannot Discriminate Between Co-Accused Persons In Renewal Of Their Arms Licenses: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 348

The Gujarat High Court has held that a licensing authority under the Arms Act cannot discriminate between two persons, who were co-accused in the same matter, by renewing the license of one of them and refusing the same treatment to the other citing criminal antecedents.

Justice AS Supehia held so while deciding the case of a Petitioner whose renewal application under the Act was declined citing criminal offence registered against him under Sections 323, 294B, 506(1) and 114 of IPC.

High Court Can Grant "Transit Anticipatory Bail" To Person Apprehending Arrest Even In Absence Of FIR: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 349

The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that a person apprehending arrest can seek "transit anticipatory bail" so as to obtain time to approach the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter, even in the absence of registration of FIR.

A transit bail is a bail granted by a Court not having jurisdiction over the place where offence was committed. A "transit anticipatory bail" therefore is when a person is apprehending arrest by police of a State other than the State where he/she is presently situated. As the word "transit" suggests, it is an act of being moved or carried from one place to another.

Contempt Proceedings Would Not Lie In Absence Of Positive Act For Wilful Disobedience: Gujarat HC Declines Plea Against UK-Based Litigant

Case Title: Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/S Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350

The Gujarat High Court has recently reiterated that the Court must confine itself in contempt jurisdiction to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. It cannot travel beyond the order alleged to have been flouted.

Further, to determine whether an act is contumacious, the Courts 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 Ashutosh Shastri stated:

"…while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts have arisen and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication ought to have been taken up for adjudication…"

Reinstatement A Normal Course When S.25(F) ID Act Is Violated, Not Compensation: Gujarat HC Grants Relief To State-Employed Sweeper

Case Title: Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/S Superintendent

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351

In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has held that the benefits of reinstatement would be a 'normal course' that ought to follow once there 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 State for 6 years. The Labour Court's award only granting lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,000 as was modified to that extent. Justice Biren Vaishnav stated:

"Having therefore found that the Labour Court having positively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no fault of the petitioner, the Labour Court proceedings having been prolonged at the instance of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been then deprived of the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to have been followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved."

Statement Recorded U/S 161 CrPC Only For Confrontation In Cross Examination, Cannot Replace Evidence: Gujarat HC Upholds Murder Acquittal

Case Title: Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352

The Gujarat High Court, while reiterating that the statement of a witness recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of CrPC does not fall within the ambit of evidence, has upheld the acquittal of a Murder accused.

The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen explained in the context of the statement recorded by the investigating officer:

"Such evidence is only for confrontation in the cross examination. Statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into account. As per the settled proposition of law, statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions."

No Material To Suggest Conversion By Use Of Force: Gujarat HC Grants Bail To 8 Accused In Bharuch Mass-Conversion Case

Case Title: Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353

The Gujarat High Court has allowed 6 bail pleas filed by 8 persons accused of forcing tribals from Amod town in Gujarat's Bharuch district to convert their religion, upon a prima facie finding that there is no material to conclusively prove that the conversion was caused by the use of force.

"While there is existence of material suggesting allurement, there does not appear to be existence of any material which would suggest conversion by use of force."

Past Service Of Transferred Employees To Be Included For Assessing Promotions, Other Benefits: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354

In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has affirmed that when a person is transferred on his own request, his past service is counted while granting promotion or higher pay scale, particularly when the same department is involved.

Thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav allowed the petition of workmen who were challenging a resolution of 2017 passed by the Finance Department stating that incumbents who had worked for five years would be considered for seniority, promotion, higher pay and terminal benefits from the initial date of engagement but not from the date of regularisation as was the case of the Petitioner. The bench reiterated:

"In the case before the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this Court, the Court held that if the petitioners were transferred to a new department, they may not get seniority but the past experience would count for the purposes of promotion and higher pay scale etc."

[Murder] Unnatural That Complainant Did Nothing To Save Deceased From Accused, Appears To Be False Case Due To Enmity: Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal

Case Title: State Of Gujarat v/s Thakore Chamanji Motiji & 3 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355

The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order acquitting four persons accused in a Murder case on the ground that there are several material contradictions in the versions presented by the main witnesses and the weapon recovered did not have blood stains to establish the commission of the offence.

A bench of Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen further noted that all witnesses were related to each other and could not deemed as 'independent witnesses.' They had prior enmity with the Accused and were interested in getting them convicted. Thus, it was concluded:

"The evidence of all the main witnesses is contradictory to each other, which is rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. As a result, the judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge is sound on the aspect of law and facts. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the trial court has been rightly appreciated by the trial court. No apparent error on the face of the record is found from the judgement."

Infraction Of Law Not Done In Systematic Manner May Not Be Sufficient For Preventive Detention: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Patel Bhaveshkumar Chandrakantbhai V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 356

The Gujarat High Court has held that commission of infraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not be sufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusion that there is no alternate but to preventively detain an accused.

The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen held:

"No doubt, neither the possibility of launching of a criminal proceedings nor pendency of any criminal proceedings is an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention. But, failure of the detaining authority to consider the possibility of either launching or pendency of criminal proceedings may, in the circumstances of a case, lead to the conclusions that the the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the vital question whether it was necessary to make an order of preventive detention."

Relief Of Specific Performance U/S 20 SRA Is No Longer Discretionary After 2018 Amendment: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel & 1 Other(S) V/S Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357

The Gujarat High Court has held that the relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act is no longer discretionary, with notification of the 2018 Amendment Act.

Whereas the unamended Section 20 stipulated that the specific relief "may" be granted at the discretion of the court, the amending Act substitutes Section 20 and renders the specific relief as regular statutory remedy.

Court Cannot Order Registration Of FIR Against Investigating Officer U/S 218 IPC Sans Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jayrajsinh Madhubha Gadhvi v/s State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 358

The Gujarat High Court has clarified that offences under Sections 218 and 219 of the IPC which pertain to a public servant framing incorrect records for saving a person from punishment and making reports in a corrupt manner, cannot be invoked without initiation of inquiry or in absence of any evidence.

In the event that these provisions are wrongly invoked such that they would adversely affect and prejudice the career of the public servant, the High Court can expunge the relevant parts from the judicial order of the Magistrate.

Notice U/S 13(2) SARFAESI Act Not Sufficient For Instituting Legal Challenge, Adjudication Must Await Until S.13(4) Stage: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar V/S The Central Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 359

The Gujarat High Court, while declining to exercise its writ jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, has held that adjudication of matter would have to wait till the stage of Section 13(4) was reached. Thereafter, the aggrieved person can file a securitisation appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Section 13(2) of the Act refers to the issuance of notice to the borrower for discharging his liabilities within 60 days in case of default in payment of debt. While Section 13(4) pertains to declaring the accounts of the borrower as an NPA and thereafter, taking possession of secured assets and appointing a person to manage such assets.

Application For Mutation Of Entry In Revenue Record Does Not Create Encumbrance On Property: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Vimalaben Prabhunath Misra V/S Ketan Chandravadan Soni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 360

The Gujarat High Court refused to initiate contempt proceedings against a party to property dispute, said to have wilfully disobeyed court's status quo order by making an application for before the concerned Revenue Authority for mutation of the entry in the revenue record, on the basis of the registered Sale Deed.

The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi and Justice AP Thaker was of the view that such an application does not breach status quo with regard to the title and the encumbrance of the suit property, in any manner. It said,

"Opponent has neither got the Suit property transferred nor is there any encumbrance created...Just because the opponent made an application for entering her name in the revenue record, it cannot be said that there is willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court."

Permanent Part-Time Service Qualifies Under Pension Regulations: Gujarat HC Upholds Payment To Retd. Cleaner At Dena Bank

Case Title: Bank Of Baroda V/S Harshadgiri Chanchalgiri Goswami

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 361

The Gujarat High Court has affirmed that a 'permanent part-time' employee is entitled to grant of pension in terms of Dena Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.

The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai and Justice Mauna Bhatt thus upheld the single bench order directing grant of pension to a part-time cleaner, who had voluntarily retired from service.

S.306 IPC | Words Uttered In Fit Of Anger Sans Intention Not Instigation/ Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Babubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 362

The Gujarat High Court has clarified in respect of Section 306 of IPC that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot amount to 'instigation.'

Therefore, if in the instant case, the Accused/Applicant had uttered 'you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die', then it would not constitute instigation as u/s 306.

These observations were made in connection with a Section 482 application challenging the FIR against the Accused for offences u/s 306 and 114 of IPC.

S.147 MV Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Compensate Person Travelling In Goods Vehicle Prior To 1994 Amendment: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Meraman Dana Harijan & 6 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 363

The Gujarat High Court has held that liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the motor accident victim was travelling in a goods vehicle and such accident took place prior to the 1994 Amendment Act. Justice Hemant Pracchak explained:

"…the present appellant insurance company is exonerated from the liability fasten upon it as the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and it is clearly breach of the policy and therefore, the insurance company is not held liable…Considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the fact that the date of accident is of 9.1.1994 i.e. prior to the date of amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which has come into force in November 1994 and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

Order Of Premature Retirement Indicating Misconduct/ Lack Of Integrity Is Stigmatic: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To Armed Police ASIs

Case Title: Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 364

The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of 'premature retirement' become stigmatic if such order contains statements indicating misconduct or lack of integrity.

"Where orders have been passed which indicate blemish, disgrace, disrespute etc., and in that context if an order of termination or of compulsory retirement is seen, the same would amount to stigma by virtue of a statement made in the order."

B.Ed. Not "Bachelor Degree" Of Graduation: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel v/s Chairman & 31 others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 365

The Gujarat High Court has held that a B.Ed. Degree, i.e., Bachelor of Education, is not a Bachelor Degree of graduation since the said course, like 3-yrs-LLB course, can be perused only after one has graduated in any of the branches of arts or science.

In the same breath, the Court held that persons possessing a B.Ed. degree are over-qualified for positions having minimum prescribed qualification of Graduation and thus, rejection of their candidature for having more qualifications cannot be held to be bad in law.

'Too Harsh For Her 2-Months Old Infant': Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 70-Yrs-Old Woman Accused Of Fraud

Case Title: Dolly Surendra Pandey Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 366

The Gujarat High Court has recently granted bail to a 70 years old woman, having a two month old infant, for commission of offences u/s 406, 420, 114, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 14, 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act.

The primary allegations against the Applicant as per the FIR and the charge sheet was that she had introduced herself as a Customs Officer and had asked the Complainant to deposit INR 3.87 lacs in the bank account of another person, so as to aid the main accused. Thereafter, the Applicant had withdrawn the said amount and handed it over to the main accused. In lieu, she received INR 50,000. The APP opposed grant of bail basis the gravity of the offence.

"AMC Resolution Doesn't Violate Fundamental Rights": Gujarat HC Dismisses Plea Against Slaughterhouse Closure Due To Jain Festival

Case title - Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to close down its sole slaughterhouse in the city on the occasion of a Jain festival.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed that the order of the AMC was applicable only for two days and that it was a reasonable restriction and did not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and therefore, the matter being meritless, was liable to be dismissed.

"No Material To Suggest His Involvement In Any Anti-National Activity": Gujarat High Court Quashes Passport Impounding Order

Case title - Gulamhusen Dadamiya Pir Versus Union Of India

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 368

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an order of the passport authorities impounding the passport of one, Gulamhusen Dadamiya Pir on the ground that he was engaged in some anti-national activities.

It is interesting to note that the passport of the petitioner was not impounded by invoking the provisions of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, which refers to the impounding of a passport, if the holder of such passport is involved in any activities, which is against the interest of the sovereignty, integrity and the security of India.

Fraudulent Power Of Attorney | Onus Of Due Diligence Before Entering Into Sale Transaction Is On Property Purchaser: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Patel Rameshchandra Mangaldas V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 369

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the onus of performing due diligence with respect to a property before entering into any transaction is on the intending purchaser.

The observation was made while deciding the anticipatory bail application moved by one such property purchaser, who was booked for Cheating under IPC, for purchasing the subject property on the basis of a fraud power of attorney.

Intra-Court Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order U/Art 227 Unless Exercise Of Original Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Is Involved: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Vithal Bogra Shetty V/S Board Of Trustees

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 370

The Gujarat High Court has distinguished between the right of an 'intra-court appeal' under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution and held that an intra-court appeal does not lie against the judgement of a Single Judge when the power of superintendence is exercised by examining the subordinate court's order.

In other words, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, does not permit an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge of the Court in an Art 227 petition.

Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Joshi stated:

"Where a petition is filed both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it will have to be considered whether the point raised in the petition arose for adjudication for the first time before the High Court. If the challenge in the petition is with respect to the points already adjudicated upon by the subordinate court or tribunal, then it will have to be held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked and not the original jurisdiction."

Appellate Courts Must Bear In Mind There Is Prejudice In Favour Of Accused In Case Of Acquittal: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Rajeshbhai Ramubhai Patel & 5 other(s)

Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 371

The Gujarat High Court, while dismissing an appeal against acquittal in a caste-based crime, reiterated that the Appellate Court has a limited scope of interfering with acquittal appeals since prejudice lies in favour of the Accused. Further, the Appellate Court can only interfere with the order of the Trial Court provided the order was manifestly unjust, perverse or contrary to law.

In the instant case, Justice AC Joshi observed that there were several contradictions and omissions in the statement of the Prosecution Witnesses and notably, the complaint was registered only after 11 days for which there was no explanation. Additionally, the alleged incident had occurred with 3 persons and yet the complaint was lodged against 6 persons. All these circumtsances were factored in by the trial Court. Hence, it was clarified:

"Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that 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."

Entire Salary Differential Of Higher Post Can't Be Granted Merely Because Additional Duties Were Undertaken By Workman Of Lower Post: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Sharda Chimanbhai Lalbhai V/S Dinesh Mohanbhai Prajapati

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 372

The Gujarat High Court has held that merely because an employee appointed to Class-IV post is handed over additional duties with respect to a higher post for a temporary period, may be during the leave vacancy of actual employee, cannot demand entire salary differential.

The Court took into account the differential aspect of appointment in Class-IV and Class-III category and concluded that merely because the petitioner, a Class-IV workman was doing additional work of Class-III category, it did not imply that he will be entitled to the pay-scale of Class-III post.

Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Can Direct Execution Of Its Orders: High Court

Case Title: Gharshala Sanstha v/s Jayshriben Ghanshyamlal Bhatt & 5 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 373

In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has confirmed that while deciding applications u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for non-compliance of the order, the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services has powers under Clause 14 of the Guj. Primary Education Tribunal (Procedure) Order, 1987 to direct the execution of its orders.

However, Justice Bhargav Karia explained that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. In light of this, the Single Judge Bench held that the Tribunal was correct in enforcing the compromise arrived at by both the Petitioner Trust and the Teachers to pay the pay-scales in accordance with Clause 2 of the terms of the compromise.

Gujarat Mining Rules | Seized Property Along With Written Complaint Must Be Produced Before Competent Court Within 45 Days: High Court

Case Title: Ajaysinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 374

The Gujarat High Court has clarified in the context of the Gujarat Mining Rules, 2017 that the investigator must approach the Sessions Court with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on the expiry of the specified time period. Failure to do this exercise, would result in the frustration of seizure and bank guarantee. Consequently, the seized property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized without bank guarantee.

Gujarat High Court Rejects PIL Filed By Mahatma Gandhi's Great Grandson Against Sabarmati Ashram Revamp Plan

Case title – Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 375

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, challenging the Gujarat government's decision to revamp/redevelop the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad at the estimated cost of ₹1,200-crore.

The bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri observed that the proposed project would promote the ideas and philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and it would be beneficial for mankind at large and that the revamped Gandhi Aashram would be a place for learning for mankind of all age groups.

Very Serious Work Of Building Roads Compromised: Gujarat HC Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Accused Of Paying ₹15 Lakhs Bribe To NHAI Chief GM

Case Title: Shivpal Singh Chaudhari V/S Central Bureau Of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 376

The Gujarat High Court has declined anticipatory bail to the Managing Directors of two private companies, accused of bribing a "very senior officer" of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

The Bench comprising Justice Nikhil Kariel observed that grant of anticipatory bail may impact a large number of people, more particularly since the accused allegedly bribed the incharge of an organization which has a "very serious responsibility" of building and maintaining important highways within the State.

CPC | 'Suit & Counterclaim Are Treated As Unified Proceedings Which Can Form Basis Of Filing Appeal': Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Bhulabhai Patel V/S Pankaj Vinodkumar Patni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 377

The Bench comprising Justice Nisha Thakore at the 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 unified proceedings. This unification of the proceedings forms the basis of filing of appeal.

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 has to be treated as a plaint for all purposes. Therefore, once the suit and the counterclaim are treated as 'unified proceedings' and the same involves two or more distinct cause of action, the aggregate valuation of the plaint and the counterclaim shall be considered for the purpose of determination pecuniary jurisdiction, Justice Thakore explained.

Offences Alleged Under Damage To Public Property Act Over Agitation Against Drainage Issues Not Act Of "Organized Crime Syndicate": Gujarat HC

Case Title: Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378

The Gujarat High Court has held that the Applicant-Accused's participation in an agitation against the Municipality for certain drainage issues and the alleged offence committed by him u/s 3 of the Damage to Public Property Act, cannot be deemed to be an act of organised crime syndicate.

Competition Act | Order Of Inquiry U/S 26 Does Not Affect Parties' Rights, Opportunity Of Hearing Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s Competition Commission of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379

The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of inquiry under Section 26 of the Competition Act is only a prima facie opinion and does not affect the rights of any person. Thus, it held that such an order cannot be reviewed by the High Court unless and until it is shown that it is contrary to the provisions of the Act or the order has included irrelevant material or not included relevant material.

Justice AP Thaker further held that at the stage of passing any order for inquiry, no right of the person concerned is breached and such person cannot claim as of right of being hearing be provided to him at that stage.

Application For Opening Of New Medical College Must Be Accompanied By Consent Of Affiliation & NOC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Inner Vision Education And Charitable Trust V/S Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380

The Gujarat High Court has held that a 'No Objection Certificate' as well as Consent of Affiliation are mandatory at the time of making an application under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 in order for a Trust to open a new Medical College. Justice Aniruddha Mayee stated:

"Therefore, the submission of No Objection Certificate as well as Consent of Affiliation was mandatory as per the list of enclosures and the applicant had to submit the same along with the application form. Admittedly in the present case at the time of submitting the application on the last date of submission i.e. 31.10.2021, the petitioners herein have not submitted the said two documents."

ITR Prior To Death Of Assessee Is The Basis For Computation Of Loss Of Future Income Including Future Prospects: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381

The Gujarat High Court has held that an income tax return (ITR) filed prior to the death of the assessee is the basis for computation of loss of future income, including future prospects.

The single bench of Justice Gita Gopi has observed that both the parents are dependents of the deceased son and are entitled to apply for compensation. Both the parents are entitled to the compensation amount under the head of dependency loss.

Not Necessary For All Tenants In Joint Tenancy To Find Alternate Accommodation For Landlord To Recover Possession U/S 13 Bombay Rents Act: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382

The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not necessary under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 that all joint tenants must find alternative accommodation so that landlord can recover possession of rented premises.

Justice AS Supehia observed,

"The landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, after coming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence and an eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. If these persons become tenants in common or joint tenants, it is not the requirement of the law that all the tenants should have built accommodation for their residence."

Employees Can't Withdraw From Voluntary Retirement Scheme After Stipulated Deadline Or Acceptance Of Benefits: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated the position of law that once the employees have accepted the benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 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, it added.

Reiterating this principle, Justice Biren Vaishnav declined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court wherein the Court had found that the employees had withdrawn their applications for VRS after their applications were accepted by the employer and the amounts were paid to them.

Complaint Already Filed Against Police Officer: Gujarat High Court Declines Contempt Action Over Failure To Register Rape FIR

Case Title: Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/S Jaydeepsinh K Rathod

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384

The Gujarat High Court declined to entertain a contempt petition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with the Apex Court's decision in Lalita Kumar v/s State of UP, for prompt registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence.

A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed:

"Having found a substantive compliant has been lodged not only against the respondent, but also against the Police Officer who was incharge and one another co-accused and as such, it appears that the grievance of the applicant is taken care of by initiating steps by filing substantive complaint and as such, the applicant has not remained remediless."

Copyright Act | No Infringement U/S 51 If Person Holds Certificate By Registrar Or License By Owner: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385

The Gujarat High Court has explained that when a person uses without the permission of the license owner or the Registrar, any product, it amounts to an infringement of copyright as under Section 51 of the Act. However, when the person is holding a certificate issued by the Registrar of Copyright, no infringement is committed.

The Bench comprising Justice Niral Mehta was hearing an application challenging the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2. It was averred that the FIR was an 'abuse of process of law' and filed with a view to oust the Applicant from the business. Further, u/s 51, if any person without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar does anything, it would amount to a infringement. However, in the instant case, the Applicant had been issued certificates by the Registrar of Copyright and therefore, according to him, there was no infringement. Additionally, the police officers had invoked Section 64 of the Copyright Act to seize the material in question. Per the Applicant, this was a 'sheer non-application of mind.'

Magistrate Must Not Authorise Detention Casually In Offences Punishable With Imprisonment Less Than 7 Years: Gujarat HC Reiterates

Case Title: KAMUBEN SOMAJI BHAVAJI THAKORE v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 386

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine, Police officers must not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate must not authorise detention casually and mechanically.

The Bench comprising Justice AC Joshi refused to cancel the bail granted to the Respondents accused of offences u/s 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC for which maximum punishment was for 7 years. Additionally, the Single Judge Bench noted that the Respondents had not breached any bail conditions.

Gujarat Hooch Tragedy: High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Amos MD, 3 Directors

Case Title: CHANDUBHAI FAKIRBHAI PATEL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 387

The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to four Directors and an employee of the Amos Corporation which is embroiled in the Hooch Tragedy of July 2022.

600 litres of methyl alcohol was allegedly stolen from the company by one of its authorized personnel Jayesh Khavadiya and was eventually supplied to bootleggers. The spurious country made liquor had claimed 46 lives and injured 82.