Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196

Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197

Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198

Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199

Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200

Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201

Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202

Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203

Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204

Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205

krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206

Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 another 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK

Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed

Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196

The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for alleged assault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, it is too early to opine on his innocence.

"If the allegations found to be true, it is a very serious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocate is expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and the Investigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory duties under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," Justice Samir Dave said.

Illegal Mining | 45 Days Period To Register FIR From Date Of Seizing Machinery Under Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 Is Mandatory: High Court

Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197

The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material.

The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.

Employer's Business Shut, Terminated Employee Encashed Compensation & Other Terminal Benefits: Gujarat High Court Declines Challenge To Retrenchment

Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198

Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not own or exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found the termination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused to interfere with his retrenchment.

Significantly, the Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Bench refused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal.

Municipal Authority Can Rely On Previous Blacklisting Resolution Which Is Set Aside By Court, Must Justify It In Final Order: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199

The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a Road Contractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant with principles of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor in relation to three work orders.

However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made it clear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing the final order in the matter.

"Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 has been set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend that respondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to the Corporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to rely upon their own earlier order, it is for them to justify it while passing the final order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity to interfere at this juncture."

Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order

Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200

The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.

The writ applicant/assessee is registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued by the State Tax Officer on Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Contraband Of Small Quantity Does Not Attract Embargo On Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act: Gujarat High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201

The High Court granted bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercial quantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accused of offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar for grant of bail under the provision.

General Category Is Open To All Meritorious Candidates, Regardless Of Them Falling In Reserved Or Unreserved Category: Gujarat High Court

Case Title : Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202

The High Court held that a reserved category meritorious candidate should be allowed to merge in the class of unreserved category because of his own merits, as depriving such candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category results into communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.

In this case, an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III was issued by the Recruitment Board inviting online applications for a total of 1,382 posts to be filled in. The petitioners are candidates who took the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for the main examination.

A Party Cannot Circumvent The Dispute Resolution Process After Agreeing On The Same: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 26 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203

The High Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.

The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made to the validity of terms of the clause

The Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process provided under the agreement after agreeing on the same with open eyes unless a challenge is made to the validity of such a clause.

Voluntary Retirement To Come Into Force Automatically On Expiry Of Notice Period If Appointing Authority Does Not Deny Permission: Gujarat High Court

Case Title : Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat| C/SCA/7676/2017| 10 June 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204

Justice Bhargav D. Karia of the High Court has held that in case of voluntary retirement from service, if the appointing authority does not permit or refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

In this case, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Deputy Engineer at Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in 1992. He served a notice for voluntary retirement in 2013 upon the University on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. In the said letter the petitioner stated that the petitioner would retire voluntarily w.e.f. 06.01.2014. The Respondent-University did not issue any intimation with regard to any order rejecting or accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 06.01.2014 on expiry of the three months' notice period.

Scope Of Judicial Review In Contractual Matters Involving Technical Issues Is Limited: Gujarat High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205

Opining that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, particularly which require technical know-how is limited, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel where the Petitioner's challenge to the show cause notices issued by Indian Oil Corporation were dismissed.

Gujarat HC Dismisses Plea Against Vadodara Urban Development Authority Demanding Betterment Charges At Stage Of "Preparing" Town Planning Scheme

Case Title: krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) was legally not entitled to demand betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc. at the time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme.

Forfeiting Gratuity A Yr After Compulsory Retirement An Afterthought: Gujarat HC Orders Payment To Ex-Employee Accused Of Causing Monetary Loss To Bank

Case Title: Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207

The High Court came to the rescue of a retired Branch Manager, accused by the employer-bank of causing it monetary loss by haphazardly sanctioning loans, and ordered the latter to clear the former's retiral dues.

Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the order forfeiting the Respondent-employee's gratuity was an "afterthought" as the same was issued only after the penalty of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement and after the respondent approached the bank seeking payment of gratuity.