Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 - August 14, 2022

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

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."