LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026

Shree Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 2

Swagat Infrastructure Private Limited v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 3

Mukesh Manubhai Shah v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1)(1) Ahmedabad 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 4

Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Mominaben Malbulbhai Ghanivala & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 5

Harsh Deepak Shah v/s Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 6

Patel Products vs. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 7

Biplob v/s State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 8

X vs NA 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 9

X vs State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 10

Deviben Bhikhabhai Vash vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 11

Shantaben WD/O Navterlal Somdas Patel v/s Vinubhai Gandabhai Patel 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 12

Vaikunthrai Ramnikrai Vasavda Since Decd Thro His Heirs & Ors. v/s Kasturben Dayalal Pandya (Decd. Thro' legal heirs) & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 13

Akib Husen Aasik Husen Saiyed vs State of Gujarat and Danish S/o Sulemanbhai Hasanbhai Dantreliya 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 14

Hebatkhan Jafarkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 15

Rohit Vallabhabhi Vasani & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 16

Yasinbhai Allarakha Baloch & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 17

LH Of Decd Nileshbhai Mahendrabhai Vasant v/s Jigar Babubhai Shah & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 18

X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 19

X v/s State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 20

X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 21

Arvind Kejriwal v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 22

State of Gujarat v/s Gopi @ Bhalabhai Girisbhai Devipujak & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 23

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporagtion v/s Khemchand Rajaram Koshti & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 24

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shitalben W/o Jigneshkumar Parekh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 25

Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana vs State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 26

Sanjaybhai Bhikabhai Parvadiya vs Pranav S. Dave, Judicial Registrar & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 27

Rameshbhai Umakant Sharma v/s Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 28

Superintendent Archealogist v/s Hirabhai Laxmanbhai Since Decd Through her Heir & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 29

Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput Since Decd. Thro His Heirs & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

Rohan Kiritbhai Desai v/s State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 31

Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v State of Gujrat and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 32

Nagar Seva Sadan, Mangrol v. Motivarash Premjibhai Damabhai 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 33

Mahesh Natubhai Gamit & Ors. V. Chhaganbhai Reshiabhai Through Heirs And L.R. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 34

Bhimaben wd/o Bhagoji Raghoji Uttekar & Ors. v. Nanubhai Ramanlal Shah & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 35

Akulkumar Dineshbhai Rana & Anr. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 36

Umiya Nitingar Goswami v Pratapbhai Valabhdas Chthani & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 37

Niranjankumar Chhaganlal Mehta v. State Of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 38

Yusufbhai Walibhai Patel & Ors. v. Zubedaben Abbasbhai Patel & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 39

Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40

Gujarat Vidhyapith v. Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 41

Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 42

Surat Manav Seva Sangh v Employees State Insurance Corporation 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 43

Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v State of Gujarat and others 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 44

Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 45

Susheel Patil v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 46

Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia v State of Gujarat and others 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 47

Krishnan Satishbhai Patel & Anr. v. Pankaj Vasantlal Jain 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 48

Madhya Gujarati Vij Company Ltd. v M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 49

Parul University v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 50

Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 51

Patel Hasanbhai Alibhai Aadambhai v. Patel Jayeshkumar Ishwarbhai & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 52

Anjal Balabhaskaran v National Institute Of Design & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 53

Bhang Anilbhai Govabhai vs State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54

Sangada Hansaben Malabhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 55

Executive Engineer G.E.B. (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) & Ors. v. Mulraj Ice Factory, Proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 56

Kinjal v State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 57

State of Gujarat v. Vishalkumar Somchandra Shah & Ors. and Batch 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 58

ABC vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 59

State of Gujarat v. Gulabchand Johrilal Jayswal & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 60

Luhar Jayatibhai Jugabhai vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 61

Farzanabanu Mohammadhanif Shaikh v Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 62

LR of Sardar Himmatbhai Khokar & Ors. v. LR of Jesangbhai Amthabhai & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 63

Rathva Meenaben Pahadsinh v Solanki Karansinh Gemalsinh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 64

Raval Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai Virchandbhai v. State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 65

F H Shaikh v State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 66

Ramjanbhai Hasambhai Khraj vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 67

State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Kishanbhai Nanalal Shah 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 68

Manjuben alias Manjulaben Shantilal Garasia & Ors. v. Sirajbhai Imamuddin Luhar & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69

Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70

Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited v/s Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105

Pravinbanu Ibrahim Sultan Mamrej Kureshi v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 132

Dilipsinh @ Dako Kishorsinh Rathod & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 133

Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 134

Seventh Day Adventist Higher Secondary School & Ors. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 135

X & Anr v/s NA, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 136

Union of India v/s Mandabai w/o Sukhdev Chavan (Mother of Decd), 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 137

Manojbhai Kachrabhai Vasoya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138

Union of India & Ors. v/s Lilavantiben B Sonegra, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 139

Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 143

Ankush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151

AnilKumar Chimanlal Dixit & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 157

Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 158

Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 159

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 160

Ajay Jagdishbhai Pordiya v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 161

Gopiben Bhagvanbhai Patel & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 162

Pranav Prabhudas Chandarana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 163

Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 164

Arjun Kuruveetil Peethmbaran v/s The Police Inspector & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 165

Judgments/Orders

 Gujarat High Court Grants Relief After Transfer Pricing Objections Were Mistakenly Filed Before Wrong Authority, Quashes Final Assessment

Case title: Milacron India Private Limited v/s The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors.

Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11194 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 1

The Gujarat High Court recently granted relief to a company which had inadvertently filed its objections to a proposed transfer pricing adjustment for Assessment Year 2022-23 before the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of filing it before the faceless authority.

The petitioner had sought quashing of final Assessment Order dated 02.05.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C (3) and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, for Assessment Year 2022-23.

 Gujarat High Court Upholds CESTAT's Order Rejecting Plea To Restore Delay Condonation Application Filed After 7 Yrs

Case title: Shree Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. Union of India & Ors

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15499 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 2

The Gujarat High Court upheld an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed a cooperative society's plea seeking restoration of its condonation of delay application on the ground that it was filed after an inordinate delay of 7 years.

The court noted that the petitioner had not provided any explanation for such delay except that it was facing a financial constraint and thus could not track the proceedings before the tribunal, observing that the same was an "excuse" with no other plausible explanation being given to explain the delay.

 Income Tax Act | Gujarat High Court Quashes S.153C Assessment As Time-Barred, Rejects Revenue's Reliance On S.153(6)(i)

Case title: Swagat Infrastructure Private Limited v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9176 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 3

The Gujarat High Court quashed assessment order as well as a demand notice issued to an entity under Section 153C Income Tax Act after noting that the assessment order was issued invoking Section 153(6)(i) was beyond the limitation period.

The petitioner had moved the high court for quashing Assessment Order dated 30.04.2024 as well as the demand Notice dated 30.04.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. It was contended that the assessment order passed by the respondent was clearly barred by limitation and hence, was without any jurisdiction.

 S.148A Income Tax Act | Gujarat High Court Quashes Reopening Of Assessment, Says AO Conducted Roving Inquiry Despite Being Given All Details

Case title: Mukesh Manubhai Shah v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1)(1) Ahmedabad

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11102 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 4

The Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings reopening the assessment of a man whose income had allegedly escaped assessment, after noting that despite the assessee explaining all banking transaction details, the assessing officer had travelled beyond the law and conducted a roving inquiry.

For context, Section 148A of the Income Tax Act pertains to conducting of inquiry by assessing officer before he issues notice to assesee in cases where income has escaped assessment.

 Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Directing Municipality To Compensate Kin Of Motorcyclist Who Died After Being Struck By Stray Bull

Case Title: Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Mominaben Malbulbhai Ghanivala & Ors.

Case Number: First Appeal No. 519 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 5

The Gujarat High Court upheld an order directing Vadodara Municipal Corporation to pay ₹4,84,473 with 9% interest per annum as damages to the kin of a motorcyclist who died in 2007 after being struck by a stray bull, holding that the accident occurred due to corporation's negligence in keeping public roads and streets free from stray cattle.

Referring to coordinate bench's decision in Faiyazhussain Nazirahmed Ansari vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Justice M.K. Thakker in his order invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and held:

“Considering the aforesaid decision as well as the circumstances of the accident, which speak for itself and narrate the entire incident, it clearly emerges that the stray bull dashed to the deceased while he was riding his motorcycle. The facts on record demonstrate that the accident occurred under the management and control of the appellant Corporation and its servants, and such an accident would not ordinarily occur if those entrusted with such management had exercised due and reasonable care. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is, therefore, squarely applicable, as no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming from the appellant regarding the cause of the accident, which was otherwise within the control of the defendant. Had due care been taken, such an unfortunate incident could have been avoided.”

 'Lame Excuses': Gujarat High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Illness Of Accountant, Closure Of Business

Case title: Harsh Deepak Shah v/s Union of India & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17382 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 6

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea challenging order of the appellate authority which had rejected the assessee's GST appeal filed belatedly, observing that it cannot quash the order in wake of the "lame excuse" given by the petitioner for condoning delay such as illness of the Accountant and closure of business.

The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging a 24.04.2024 order which was rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable and time barred.

GST| Tobacco In Small Retail Packs Classifiable As 'Chewing Tobacco': Gujarat High Court

Case Detail: Patel Products vs. Union of India & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2407 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 7

The Gujarat High Court, in a bunch of matters concerning classification of Raw Tobacco Leaves packed and sold in retail pouches, were classifiable as 'Chewing Tobacco' irrespective of whether it was scented, fermented or liquored and re-packed or re-labelled.

In a recent judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, rejected the Tobacco Manufacturers stance that Tobacco without being fermented or liquored ceases to be a “Chewing Tobacco”. It was held that processes such as drying cleaning, sieving, sizing, cutting, and packaging into retail pouches would satisfy three important parameters (i) distinct name (ii) distinct character and (iii) distinct use, resulted in 'Manufacture' under GST.

Prima Facie Established Citizenship: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Obtaining Indian Passport Having Bangladeshi Parents

Case title: Biplob v/s State of Gujarat

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 27169 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 8

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a man accused of illegally obtaining Indian passport despite having Bangladeshi parentage, observing that he had "prima facie" established based on the passport issued to him by competent authority that he was an Indian citizen.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order observed that it appeared that the allegation against the petitioner was that he is not an Indian Citizen. The court noted that it appeared that the petitioner held Indian Passport which stated to be not forged, however the allegation levelled was that the parents of the petitioner were Bangladeshi Nationals.

S.13B HMA | 6-Month Cooling Off Period Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Plea For Divorce By Mutual Consent

Case Title: X vs NA

Case Number: First Appeal No. 4404 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 9

The Gujarat High Court has quashed a Family Court order which had rejected a couple's plea for divorce by mutual consent on the ground that six month cooling off period had to be followed, observing that parties had been residing separately for over a year and were settled in different countries.

It thus held that the prescription of observing six month cooling of period was not mandatory and not granting divorce to the couple who had no chance of a reunion would only prolong their agony.

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile In POCSO Case After 'Out Of Court Settlement' With Complainant

Case Title: X vs State of Gujarat

Case Number: Criminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 2316 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 10

The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a juvenile in conflict with law who was accused of rape under POCSO Act, after noting that the juvenile and the complainant had arrived at an "out of Court settlement" where she had expressed no objection to his release.

Justice P.M. Raval while considering the general principles to be followed in administration under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act and noting the principle of presumption of innocence observed:

“In aforesaid view of the matter, considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement as well as considering the Report of the Probation Officer and physical and mental condition as well as the family condition of the juvenile in conflict with law, as narrated therein, General Principles as laid down in the JJ Act, referred to herein above, as well as the fact that now Charge-sheet in the case is filed and last but not the least, as there is nothing on record to show that proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act is applicable on the case on hand, the Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present juvenile applicant.”

Caste Certificate Of Woman Candidate Recommended As Tax Officer Under ST Category Validated After Gujarat High Court's Intervention

Case Title: Deviben Bhikhabhai Vash vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 15340 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 11

The caste certificate of a meritorious woman candidate who was denied appointment as State Tax Officer under Scheduled Tribe (Female) category despite selection and recommendation by state public service commission, was validated by the scrutiny committee after intervention by the Gujarat High Court.

The petitioner had approached the High Court claiming her ST status for the appointment to the post of State Tax Officer with deemed seniority. The plea stated that her forefathers belonged to the Gir, Barda, and Alech forest regions and as per a 1956 Presidential Notification members of the Rabari, Bharwad and Charan communities residing in these areas were identified as Scheduled Tribes.

HC Can't Reappreciate Evidence In Revision Under Section 29(2) Of Bombay Rent Act; Power Is Supervisory: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Shantaben WD/O Navterlal Somdas Patel v/s Vinubhai Gandabhai Patel

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 636 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 12

The Gujarat High Court has held that revision under Section 29(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act against rent court's orders has a narrow scope, prohibiting the high court to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings, preventing it from becoming a Second Appeal and ensuring quick finality of rent dispute.

In doing so the court explained that High Court's power is supervisory and interference limited to cases where there is a clear/obvious and error apparent on the face or legal flaw on the lower Court's order.

S.12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act | Tenant Must Prove Readiness To Pay Rent Including Interim Standard Rent To Claim Protection: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Vaikunthrai Ramnikrai Vasavda Since Decd Thro His Heirs & Ors. v/s Kasturben Dayalal Pandya (Decd. Thro' legal heirs) & Ors.

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 221 of 2004

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 13

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that to claim protection from eviction under Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act a tenant has to prove that he was "ready and willing" to pay the standard rent and permitted increases, which "also includes interim standard rent" fixed by the court.

For context, Section 12 of the Act states that no ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases.

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Luring Indian Citizens Abroad With Job Offers, Only To Be Held As 'Cyber Slaves'

Case Title: Akib Husen Aasik Husen Saiyed vs State of Gujarat and Danish S/o Sulemanbhai Hasanbhai Dantreliya

Case Number: Cr.MA (For Successive Regular Bail -After Chargesheet) No. 27701 of 2025 with Cr.MA No. 27306 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 14

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (January 6) granted bail to two men accused of luring Indian citizens with job offers in a foreign country where they were allegedly held as 'cyber slaves'.

In doing so the court observed that the applicants were only "small time players" who tried to get their friends employed, holding that their actions appeared to be prima facie bonafide.

 Gujarat High Court Asks State Authority To Grant Personal Hearing Over Removal Of Religious Structure Allegedly Encroaching Water Body

Case title: Hebatkhan Jafarkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SCA/13155/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 15

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (January 8) asked the state authorities to consider objections and provide a personal hearing to certain persons who had challenged a notice asking them to remove an alleged encroachment— stated to be an ancient Dargah, claimed to be constructed over a water body.

The court was hearing a petition challenging a notice dated 18-8-2025 whereby petitioners were directed to remove encroachment on the ground that construction is on a water body. Under the said notice 21 days time was given to remove encroachment failing which appropriate action under provisions of Gujarat Municipal Corporations Act has been indicated.

Gujarat High Court Bars Sealing Of Residential Premises Until Decision By Authorities On Owners' Pleas Seeking Change In Use Permission

Case title: Rohit Vallabhabhi Vasani & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SCA/206/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 16

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 9) directed state authorities to decide applications moved by certain individuals seeking change in use of residential premises and said that until these applications are decided the premises shall not be sealed.

The court was hearing a petition challenging Notice dated 05.03.2025 whereby the petitioners have been informed that on account of change in use of premises, their premises would get sealed.

Gujarat High Court Closes Plea Against 'Dhurandhar' Movie After Producers Inform That 'Derogatory' Word Against Baloch Community Is Muted

Case Title: Yasinbhai Allarakha Baloch & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 17681 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 17

The Gujarat High Court closed a plea seeking direction to remove allegedly objectionable dialogues against Baloch community in 'Dhurandhar' movie, after the film's producers informed the court that the dialogue had already been muted thereby leaving no surviving grievances or dispute.

The court was hearing a petition was moved by two men belonging to the Baloch community, including the Vice President of the Uttar Gujarat Baloch Samaj Trust, Patan seeking removal of certain dialogue which were stated to be objectionable and derogatory with respect to the Baloch community.

Motor Accident Compensation Not 'Bonanza'; Claimants Can't Recover Medical Expense Borne By Charity: Gujarat High Court

Case title: LH Of Decd Nileshbhai Mahendrabhai Vasant v/s Jigar Babubhai Shah & Anr.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 18

While considering plea seeking enhancement of compensation to the kin of the deceased who died after an accident, the Gujarat High Court recently observed that compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a "bonanza or a jackpot".

The court was hearing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of appellants and awarded compensation of Rs.41,05,240 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Mother Who Handed Over Son To Father's Custody During Divorce Can't Claim 'Superior' Right Later: Gujarat High Court

Case title: X v/s Y

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2780 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 19

The Gujarat High Court upheld a family court order which had rejected a mother's claim seeking custody over the minor son, ruling that she had agreed and signed the divorce agreement handing over custody to the father "consciously" and she can't now claim "superior custody" over the child.

The appellant mother had challenged a family court order which while rejecting her custody claim had granted her exclusive visitation rights to meet her minor son on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each month between 10 a.m to 5 p.m at any public place in Ahmedabad or any other place where the child is comfortable.

Intimacy Though Normal Between Married Couples Must Be Consensual; Unconsesual Sex With Spouse Causes Trauma: Gujarat High Court

Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat

R/CR.MA/26922/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 20

The Gujarat High Court has held that while marriage is seen as automatic grant of sexual consent and intimacy between married couples is normal however, it has to be consensual and mutually respectful, recognizing bodily freedom of spouse within marital relationship.

In doing so the court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man who was accused by his wife of sexual assault and having unnatural sex as well as physical and mental assault.

'Erroneous': Gujarat High Court Quashes Order Declining Execution Of Consensual Divorce Decree Over Property Dispute Between Parties

Case title: X v/s Y

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 21

The Gujarat High Court quashed a family court order which refused to execute a decree of divorce by mutual consent, observing that when the husband and wife had agreed to compromise decree with conditions and not to go for adjudication of rights then family court had no option but to execute it.

The court was hearing a man's plea challenging a family court's order which had refused to execute the decree of divorce by mutual consent agreed between him and his wife which contained certain conditions.

 PM Modi Degree Row: Press Conference By Arvind Kejriwal, Sanjay Singh Was Part Of 'Political Strategy', Gujarat High Court Observes

Case title: Arvind Kejriwal v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/SCR A (QUASHING) NO. 17143 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 22

Rejecting former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking separate trial from AAP leader Sanjay Singh in a defamation case over alleged remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education Degree, the Gujarat High Court held that both the leaders had decided to hold a press conference over the issue as part of "political strategy".

The court thus said that it appeared that the incident alleged against Kejriwal and Singh "were forming part of the same transaction".

The defamation case was lodged by Gujarat University against the two AAP leaders right after the High Court's order quashing and setting aside a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the University to provide “information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi" to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Before the high court, Kejriwal had challenged a December 15, 2025 order passed by the Additional Principal Judge Manish Pradyuman Purohit, City Sessions Court Ahmedabad, which had dismissed his revision application to quash a September 23, 2023 order of the magistrate court rejecting his application seeking separation of trial of accused persons.

Justice MR Mengdey in his order said:

"The petitioner as well as the co-accused Sanjay Singh being at the helm of a political party i.e. Aam Aadmi Party, had decided to address the Press Conference after the order of this Court, raising doubt about the degree of the Honourable the Prime Minister and the intent on the part of the University in not providing information in that regard. Even though, the provisions of Section 120(B) and Section 34 of the IPC are not invoked against the petitioner as well as co-accused in the complaint, it appears that the petitioner and coaccused had decided to address the Press Conference as a part of their political strategy and after holding those Press Conferences, videos of respective the Press Conferences were also uploaded by them. Therefore, it appears that the incident alleged against the petitioner as well as other coaccused were forming part of the same transaction".

Suspicion Can't Replace Proof, State Failed To Prove Guilt: Gujarat High Court Quashes Death Sentence Of 3 Convicted For Gang Rape, Murder

Case title: State of Gujarat v/s Gopi @ Bhalabhai Girisbhai Devipujak & Ors.

R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 6 of 2022,

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 23

The Gujarat High Court set aside the death sentence of three men, convicted for the murder and gang rape of a woman, noting that the State was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards their guilt could not be proved.

The three accused men were convicted for gang rape and murder of a married woman and were sentenced to capital punishment. The court was hearing the accused appeal against conviction as well as death sentence reference.

Gujarat High Court Permits Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation To Reduce Bed Capacity In 95-Yr-Old Hospital To Complete Renovation

Case title: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporagtion v/s Khemchand Rajaram Koshti & Ors.

MCA/1/2025 IN CA/1/2022 IN R/WPPIL/123/2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 24

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 16) permitted Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to reduce the bed capacity at the corporation run Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital and Chinai Hospital–stated to be in dilapidated condition–in order to complete the renovation works, as a temporary arrangement.

The court was hearing an application filed by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in a 2020 PIL to seek modification of earlier orders dated 12-9-2022 and 19-9-2022 passed in writ petition to the extent of the observation made therein that Sheth VS Hospital (founded in 1931) and Chinai Hospital run by Corporation consisting of 500 beds would not be demolished. The orders had also stated that the hospital will continue to operate with requisite infrastructure facilities.

 MV Act | 'Gross Salary To Include Gratuity, HRA, Etc': Gujarat High Court Grants ₹1.07 Crore Compensation To Deceased Motorcyclist's Kin

Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shitalben W/o Jigneshkumar Parekh & Ors.

Case Number: First Appeal No. 195 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 25

The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased motorcyclist to ₹1.07 crore, who died after colliding with a tanker illegally parked on a highway at night without reflectors, parking lights or warning signals.

In doing so the court dismissed the insurance company's appeal which had challenged the award of over Rs. 97 Lakh granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court however increased the compensation by enhancing amounts awarded including Loss of consortium from Rs. 40,000 to Rs.1,93,600,

 Passport Authority Can't Determine If Accused Facing Criminal Proceedings Has 'Right To Travel Abroad': Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana vs State of Gujarat

Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 28 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 26

The Gujarat High Court recently held that the passport authorities have no authority to determine whether an accused facing pending criminal proceedings has a 'right to travel abroad'.

In doing so the court held that such authority is only vested with the Trial Court which can impose appropriate conditions when application is made seeking permission to travel abroad.

The court was hearing the petitioner's plea seeking permission to travel abroad, booked in an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), 114 (Presence of abettor at the time of the offence).

 Gujarat High Court Rejects Litigant's Plea To Argue Case In Gujarati, Incompetence In English No Ground

Case Title: Sanjaybhai Bhikabhai Parvadiya vs Pranav S. Dave, Judicial Registrar & Anr.

Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 16633 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 27

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a man's plea–who appeared as party in person–challenging a certificate issued by High Court Legal Services (HCLS) Committee holding him "incompetent" to argue his case before the court in English language.

The petitioner challenged the certificate whereby the Committee refused to grant permission to the petitioner for arguing his case before the High Court as a party-in-person. The petitioner sought quashing of the Certificate on the ground that conduct of proceedings in English language before the High Court infringes his right and he maybe permitted to argue his case in Gujarati language.

Pujari Has No Proprietary Right Over Temple Land, Can't Claim Adverse Possession: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rameshbhai Umakant Sharma v/s Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi & Ors.

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 10 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 28

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a temple priest's appeal against an order rejecting his claim for adverse possession over the religious structure situated on a public access road, holding that a priest had no proprietary right over the land was only "servant to a deity" and thus could not make such a claim.

Justice JC Doshi was hearing a dispute which arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking removal of a Ganesh temple allegedly constructed on a public access road abutting her property. She claimed title to the adjoining plots through a registered sale deed and asserted that the construction obstructed her right of ingress and egress.

Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On ASI For Delaying Compensation To Dholavira Farmers, Orders Recovery From Erring Officers

Case title: Superintendent Archeaologist v/s Hirabhai Laxmanbhai Since Decd Through her Heir & Ors.

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5657 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/33155/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 29

The Gujarat High Court imposed Rs. 1 Lakh cost on Archaeological Survey of India for suppressing material facts pertaining to execution proceedings concerning compensation order granted by trial court to farmers of Dholavira village in Kutch whose land was acquired by the authority.

The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the authority observing that "despite acquiring the land more than 20 years ago", the "claimants had been deprived" of reasonable compensation till date.

Justice MK Thakker in his order also questioned the authority's reason for delay–i.e. mandatory governmental procedure of obtaining administrative approval from higher authorities.

"In the present case, the explanation that the delay occurred due to mandatory governmental procedure of obtaining administrative approval from higher authorities does not inspire confidence and fails to constitute a sufficient cause in the eyes of law...It emerges that despite the Superintendent of Archaeology having advised compliance with the judgment and release of compensation to the landowners, the present appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay, that too without offering any sufficient explanation...For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the suppression of material facts regarding the filing of the execution application and the assurances given by the applicant authority, this Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected with costs of ₹1,00,000/- collectively. The said costs shall be recovered from the erring officer(s) responsible for such suppression and lapse".

 Agreement To Sell Doesn't Create Rights Over Reserved Forest Land: Gujarat High Court Dismisses 22-Year-Old Appeal

Case title: Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput Since Decd. Thro His Heirs & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 of 2004

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

The Gujarat High Court has held that an agreement to sell in respect of land forming part of Government forest land does not create any right, title, or interest, and that possession claimed on the basis of such an agreement cannot be protected against the State.

Justice J. C. Doshi dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure back in 2004, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.

 Young Men Languishing In Jail As Laws Don't Approve Relationship With Girls Below 18 Yrs Even If Just Friendly: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rohan Kiritbhai Desai v/s State of Gujarat and connected petition

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 446 of 2006 with

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.500 OF 2006

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 31

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order convicting two men of kidnapping a girl observing that they were 'good samaritans' who had helped her but instead landed up in jail, adding that many young men were languishing in jail because of stringent laws which don't approve relations with the girls below 18 years even if it is friendly.

The court was hearing appeals filed by two young men, who were convicted by the trial court of kidnapping a girl (Section 363 IPC) and for inducing her to compel her to marry (Section 366IPC) and were further sentenced to two years for each of the offences. They were further convicted under provisions of of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.

Justice Gita Gopi in her order observed that the two accused–Rohan and Amit, had sought to help the victim but had instead landed up in jail and said:

"The facts and circumstances of the case, through the examination of witnesses, clearly draws to a conclusion that the police failed to protect the victim girl when she was in distress. When the victim had gone to commit suicide at Narmada Canal, the police which met her were required to entrust the girl to her parents. Both the accused appears to have played the role of Good Samaritan, but landed up in jail. The victim's deposition does not demonstrate that the appellants-accused forcibly removed or enticed her from the guardianship of her parents with deceit or inducement. The victim had ample opportunity to make complaints against the accused, even when she was in the rickshaw of PW1, they met police who had intercepted the rickshaw there too. She introduced herself with accused Rohan as brother and sister, going towards examination hall. Accused Amit's role appears to be of a provider giving money and purchasing clothes, for both the runaway victim and accused Rohan. It appears that both the accused had no idea that protecting the girl would land them up in jail".

"Late adolescence as young adult requires to teach them a lesson that assisting or helping a maiden in distress-adolescence girls below 18 years of age would make them face trial under the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Lots of young adults are languishing in jail, because of the stringent laws which do not approve relation with the girl below 18 years, be it in a friendly manner," the court added.

'Lowered Dignity Of Institution': Gujarat High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant Claiming Courts Disregard SC Orders

Case: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v State of Gujrat and Ors

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 32

The Gujarat High Court issued contempt notice to a litigant who had claimed that the general opinion was while Supreme Court passes orders and shows proactiveness to address public safety issues, other constitutional courts "flagrantly disregard the law".

The court was hearing a plea by Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, who appeared as party-in-person, challenging Magistrate Court's order declining to refer his complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; and had instead fixed the matter for examination of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC. The petitioner had sought registration of an FIR alleging use of forged NOCs obtained by certain builders for construction near Surat airport in contravention to the prescribed standards, claiming that non-registration of an FIR in a cognizable offence is against Supreme Court's decisions.

Municipality Cannot Benefit Private Party At Cost Of State; Disposal Of Public Property Must Be In Public Interest & Free From Bias: Gujarat HC

Case: Nagar Seva Sadan, Mangrol v. Motivarash Premjibhai Damabhai.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 33

The Gujarat High Court has held that the State and municipal authorities cannot act in a manner that benefits a private party at the cost of public property, and that any such action would be unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The Court observed that public authorities are bound by the doctrine of public trust and cannot alienate municipal land in an arbitrary manner.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi was hearing the second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance and declaration of rights in respect of municipal land at Mangrol. The appeal was filed by the original defendant against concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiff and directed execution of a sale deed on the basis of an alleged resolution passed by the Nagarpalika in 1973.

Advocate's Clerk Can Be A Valid Attesting Witness To Will: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Natubhai Gamit & Ors. V. Chhaganbhai Reshiabhai Through Heirs And L.R. & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 34

The Gujarat High Court has held that the mere fact that an attesting witness to a Will is employed as a clerk with an advocate appearing in the matter cannot, by itself, render the witness unreliable or the Will suspicious, particularly when such witness has been examined by the very party seeking to challenge the Will.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi was hearing an appeal filed by Mahesh Natubhai Gamit and others against respondents-defendants Chhaganbhai Reshiabhai, through his heirs and legal representatives, arising out of a family dispute concerning the validity of a registered Will and a claim for partition.

Admission In Employer's Written Statement Sufficient To Prove Employment Relationship Under Workmen's Compensation Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Bhimaben wd/o Bhagoji Raghoji Uttekar & Ors. v. Nanubhai Ramanlal Shah & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 35

The Gujarat High Court quashed an order rejecting a compensation claim by the kin of a deceased worker holding that a clear admission made by the employer in a written statement filed before the authority is sufficient to establish existence of an employer–employee relationship under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

In doing so the court observed that strict proof as per Indian Evidence Act is not expected while deciding claims under Workmen's Compensation Act the primary objective of which is to protect workmen.

Justice Devan M. Desai was hearing a first appeal filed by Bhimaben, widow of Bhagoji Raghoji Uttekar, and other legal heirs of the deceased worker against Nanubhai Ramanlal Shah and Amrutbhai Panchal, challenging an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Vadodara.

Working Mother Leaving Child With Her Parents Not Illegal Detention, Habeas Corpus Can't Bypass Custody Proceedings: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Akulkumar Dineshbhai Rana & Anr. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 36

The Gujarat High Court has held that a working mother's decision to leave her minor daughter with her own parents for care and upbringing does not amount to illegal confinement and cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus plea, particularly in the absence of any custody order or pending custody proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D.M. Vyas was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father, alleging that his minor daughter was being illegally detained by her mother and maternal relatives. The father sought production of the child before the Court and a direction to set her at liberty by handing over custody to him.

Minor Accident Victim Who Underwent Amputation Can't Be Awarded 'Token' Damages: Gujarat High Court Enhances Compensation To ₹21.19 Lakh

Case Title: Umiya Nitingar Goswami v Pratapbhai Valabhdas Chthani & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 37

The Gujarat High Court has enhanced compensation awarded to a minor accident victim from ₹8.77 lakh to ₹21.19 lakh, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in applying a notional income, under-assessing functional disability, and awarding inadequate non-pecuniary damages.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar was hearing a first appeal filed by Umiya Nitingar Goswami under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 26 April 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj–Kutch.

Father Not Protecting Married Daughter Who Comes Back Home Alleging Abuse By Husband Can Lead Her To Commit Suicide: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Niranjankumar Chhaganlal Mehta v. State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 38

The Gujarat High Court has observed that when a married woman returns to her parental home alleging abuse by her husband, the failure of her parents, particularly her father, to protect her at that stage may also contribute to her decision to commit suicide.

The Court made this observation while setting aside the conviction of a husband under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to prove both charges.

Justice Gita Gopi was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Niranjankumar Chhanganlal Mehta (accused), challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court which had convicted him for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Ancestral Property, Right Of Birth Wholly Foreign To Muslim Law: Gujarat High Court Rejects Woman's Plea For Share In Father's Estate

Case Title: Yusufbhai Walibhai Patel & Ors. v. Zubedaben Abbasbhai Patel & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 39

The Gujarat High Court has held that the concepts of 'joint family property', 'ancestral property' and 'right by birth' as understood in Hindu law, cannot be invoked in disputes governed by Mohammedan law.

The court made the observation while setting aside trial court's temporary injunction order granted in favour of a Muslim woman in her suit seeking administration of her deceased estate.

Justice J.C. Doshi was dealing with a batch of civil revision applications and appeals from orders arising out of a long-pending family dispute between siblings over several parcels of immovable properties in Vadodara.

Human Rights Commission Can't Entertain Private Property Disputes: Gujarat High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Jurisdictional Overreach

Case Title: Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40

Observing that a grievance relating to share in property “cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights,” the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings initiated by the State Human Rights Commission in a family property dispute.

In doing so the court also issued detailed directions to regulate the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction while considering cases of human rights violation.

Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the present case was a “clear instance” where the State Human Rights Commission had exercised powers not conferred upon it under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court emphasised that proceedings under the Act are not meant for settlement of private civil disputes and that entertaining such complaints amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the civil court.

'UGC Plays No Role In Appointing Non-Teaching Staff': High Court Quashes Termination Of Librarian By Gujarat Vidhyapith After 18 Years

Case Title: Gujarat Vidhyapith v. Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 41

The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal by Gujarat Vidhyapith challenging a Single Judge's order which had set aside the termination of a long-serving Assistant Librarian and directed payment of back wages and retiral benefits. The Bench made it clear that UGC regulations do not govern non-teaching posts such as Assistant Librarian in the non-teaching cadre.

A Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order passed in a writ petition filed by a former employee of Gujarat Vidhyapith.

S.346(2) BNSS | Remand Beyond 15 Days Of Accused Already In Custody Not Illegal, Habeas Corpus Won't Lie In Every Case: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 42

The Gujarat High Court has observed that remand of an accused already in custody beyond the 15-day period prescribed under first proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS is not illegal, and a habeas corpus will not lie unless the remand order is shown to be patently illegal, without jurisdiction or passed mechanically.

A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D.M. Vyas were hearing two connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari (father of the detenus), seeking the release of his sons, who were in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case registered under various provisions of the BNS and the Gujarat Police Act.

S.45A ESI Act | Charitable Trust Running Pathology Lab Not 'Factory': Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Orders To Pay Contribution Dues

Case Title: Surat Manav Seva Sangh v Employees State Insurance Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 43

Holding that activities of a charitable trust providing diagnostic services within a Government Civil Hospital does not prima facie fall within the definition of “factory” under Employees' State Insurance Act, the Gujarat High Court quashed ESIC's Section 45A orders for payment of contribution dues by trust.

As per Section 2(12) Factory means any premises including the precincts thereof where 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on.

The Bench comprising Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak observed that the authorities had mechanically invoked Sections 45A (Determination of contributions in certain cases where an employer fails to submit returns or obstructs inspection) and 45AA (appellate authority) of the ESI Act without properly examining whether the petitioner's establishment satisfied the statutory definition of a factory. The Court noted that the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to address the foundational issue of coverage.

Quashed FIR For Minor Offence Not Ground To Deny Job In Police Force: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v State of Gujarat and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 44

The Gujarat High Court has held that a candidate selected for the post of Unarmed Police Constable cannot be denied appointment solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, especially when the FIR has been quashed.

In doing so the Court quashed the order refusing appointment and directed reconsideration of the candidate's case.

Justice Nirzar S. Desai was hearing a Special Civil Application filed by Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod challenging the order dated 12.10.2023 whereby he was not permitted to join the post of Unarmed Lokrakshak (police constable) despite being selected.

Commission-Based Workers At Civil Hospital Not Govt Servants; No Right To Regularisation: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar v State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 45

Holding that handicapped staff at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital issuing case papers were only working on a contractual basis, earning a commission and were never appointed through a regular recruitment process, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant them status as government servants or direct regularisation of service.

The Bench comprising Justice Maulik J. Shelat further said that since none of the petitioners were directly appointed by the respondent through due process, i.e., as per recruitment rules but through the Blind People's Association and are receiving their remuneration in the form of commission, their status remains that of 'commission agents' rather than employees in any form.

Employee Can't Be Denied Promotion Due To Employer's Failure To Timely Communicate Annual Performance Reports: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Susheel Patil v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 46

The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of promotion by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd based on Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) communicated belatedly violates principles of natural justice, and directed reconsideration of an employee's promotion without applying the benchmark requirement.

Justice Maulik J. Shelat was hearing a writ petition filed by Susheel Patil challenging the decision of IRCTC denying him promotion from Grade E-3 to Grade E-4 on the ground that he had not met the benchmark score of 21 out of 25 prescribed under the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012.

2002 Godhra Riots: Gujarat High Court Rejects Victim's Plea For Additional Ex-Gratia Compensation Citing 'General & Vague' Particulars

Case Title: Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia v State of Gujarat and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 47

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking additional ex-gratia compensation under the relief and rehabilitation packages announced for victims of the 2002 Post Godhra train burning communal riots, observing that the prayers were “general and vague in nature not specifying any categories or any deficiencies".

Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that in the absence of material particulars and specific entitlement, no writ of mandamus could be issued directing implementation of government resolutions in a general manner. The Court concluded that the petition was “devoid of merits.”

Heirs Can't Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Decree Without Explaining Original Defendant's Non-Appearance: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Krishnan Satishbhai Patel & Anr. v. Pankaj Vasantlal Jain

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 48

The Gujarat High Court has observed that heirs of a party cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree without explaining or showing "sufficient cause" for non-appearance of their mother, despite being represented by an advocate in the court.

Justice Devan M. Desai observed that even if a liberal view is to be adopted while considering restoration applications, “the defendant, at least must show a plausible sufficient cause which prevented the defendant to appear and contest the suit.” The Court said that it cannot presume such cause merely because the legal heirs later claim ignorance of the decree.

Gujarat High Court Cautions Trial Judges To Avoid Drafting Mistakes In Judgments, After Finding Copy-Paste Errors In Arbitration Order

Case Title: Madhya Gujarati Vij Company Ltd. v M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 49

The Gujarat High Court has cautioned Commercial and Trial Court judges across the State after finding drafting errors in a Section 34 order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, directing that its observations be circulated to all district courts to prevent recurrence of such mistakes.

Emphasising the need for judicial diligence, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray observed, “Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, though, we find that there are errors in noting some factual aspects here and there and it seems that the learned Judge has copied certain paragraphs from another of his own judgments rendered on similar point of controversy, but the said errors do not form part of the crucial reasonings of the Court in refusing to set aside the arbitral award. The errors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are clerical/typographical in nature, which could have been corrected had an application been filed by the applicant, without changing the structure of the judgment, i.e. the reasonsing and the conclusion... We would like to add a word of caution for the Judges of the Commercial / Trial Court to be careful in writing their judgments specifically while deciding more than one cases of the similar nature. The learned Judges are required to read the draft judgments carefully, and edit them so as to avoid occurrence of any such mistake.

Students Can't Suffer Due To Dispute Over Approval Of College: Gujarat High Court Orders Grant Of License To Homeopathy Doctors

Case Title: Parul University v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 50

The Gujarat High Court has held that students who had completed their Homeopathy course under protection of interim court orders cannot be denied license to practice or recognition of their degrees merely because dispute over grant of approval to the college by the regulator remained unresolved.

Considering the plight of students, Justice Nirzar S Desai noted,

“Now, at this stage, though the petitions have remained pending, if the Court considers the merits of the matter and the issues involved and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the petitions do not have any merit, in that case, ultimately, the sufferers would be the students, who are not before the Court…the College would continue to function, and it would be only the students who would suffer...The respondents are directed to grant permission for license to practice as well as the LOP, i.e., Letter of Permission, to the College, and to grant all such other permissions and approvals as may be required for the functioning of the College, as if such permissions had been granted at the relevant point of time".

'One Incident' Of Husband Slapping Wife For Staying Overnight At Parent's Home Without Telling Him Not Cruelty: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli v State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 51

The Gujarat High Court has observed that "one incident" of a husband slapping his wife on the ground of her staying overnight at parental home without informing him would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Acquitting the husband accused of cruelty and abetment to suicide after 23 years, the court further said that allegation of persistent, unbearable continuous beatings by husband would require cogent evidence to be proved to show that it drove the wife to commit suicide.

Mortgage By Conditional Sale Retains Debtor-Creditor Relationship, Distinct From Sale With Repurchase Option: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Patel Hasanbhai Alibhai Aadambhai v. Patel Jayeshkumar Ishwarbhai & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 52

Emphasizing the distinction between a "mortgage by conditional sale" and a "sale with a condition to repurchase", the Gujarat High Court reiterated that a transaction which creates debtor-creditor relationship and right of redemption subsists in favour of mortgagor, must be treated as a mortgage with conditional sale.

Justice J.C. Doshi referred to Supreme Court's decision in Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai (D) Thr. LRs v. Rahemanbhai M. Shaikh (D) Thr. LRs & Ors., (2016) where the apex court had referred to Mulla's Transfer of Property Act (11th Edition) and had said:

“In a mortgage with conditional sale, the relation of a debtor and a creditor subsists while in a sale with an option of re-purchase, there is no such relationship and the parties stand on an equal footing…the debt subsists as it is a borrowing arrangement…and the right of redemption subsists in favour of the mortgagor despite the expiry of the time stipulated in the contract for its payment...but in a sale with an option of re-purchase, there is no such relationship....original seller must re-purchase the property within the stipulated time period. If he commits a default the option of re-purchase is lost".

Gujarat High Court Directs NID To Issue Mark-Sheet To Student Who Was Admitted Against Vacant Reserved Seat Under Interim Orders

Case Title: Anjal Balabhaskaran v National Institute Of Design & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 53

The Gujarat High Court has directed the National Institute of Design (NID) to issue mark sheets and related academic documents to a student who completed his course after being granted admission against vacant reserved seats pursuant to a 2021 interim order.

Granting relief, Justice Nirzar S. Desai observed:

“It is an undisputed position that the present applicant has successfully passed out the course wherein he was admitted and the only formality which is left out is to provide mark-sheet and degree certificate… if the respondents are directed to provide the mark-sheet and other relevant documents that the applicant would require for his career advancement, the same is not going to create any prejudice in favour of anyone and hence, respondent No. 1 is directed to provide the mark-sheet and other relevant documents that the applicant may ask within a period of 15 days from today.”

Minor Refuses To Return Home, Alleges Forced Marriage: Gujarat High Court Orders Custody With Children Home

Case Title: Bhang Anilbhai Govabhai vs State of Gujarat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54

The Gujarat High Court directed the Children's Home in Mehsana to take the custody of a 16-year-old girl until she attains the age of majority, after she informed that she had voluntarily left her home alleging she was being tortured and coerced by her parents to marry a person against her choice.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of the girl who had claimed that his daughter was being illegally confined by the respondents. The court had earlier issued a notice to the State directing it to 'trace and secure the corpus' and present her before the court.

Unmarried Woman Can't Be Denied Public Employment Over Fear That She May Relocate After Marriage: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sangada Hansaben Malabhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 55

The Gujarat High Court has held that denying public employment to an unmarried woman on the ground that she may marry and relocate is arbitrary and unconstitutional, observing that such reasoning reflects clear favouritism and violates equality principles.

Coming down heavily on the appointing authority, Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed, “This is a classic example of outright favouritism by the then Mamlatdar… There is nothing on record to show and substantiate… that an unmarried village girl cannot be appointed because in near future she might get married and shift to some other village. Such a reason is not only arbitrary, fanciful, frivolous, but violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Mere Possibility Of Meter Tampering Not Enough To Prove Electricity Theft By Consumer: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Executive Engineer G.E.B. (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) & Ors. v. Mulraj Ice Factory, Proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 56

The Gujarat High Court has held that an electricity company cannot raise theft bills or recover such charges from a consumer merely on an assumption of meter tampering.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Executive Engineer of Gujarat Electricity Board (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) against a trial court order which had rejected its claim of electricity theft while relying on a laboratory report which stated that a plastic strip "can be inserted" in the gap between meter cover and glass.

Justice Devan M Desai said:

“Defendants' assertion is that the plaintiffs have dishonestly used electric energy. Such positive assertion has to be proved by the defendants and not negatively proved by the plaintiffs… Only on report that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass is not sufficient to establish that consumer was involved in the activity of theft of electric energy… Supplementary bill was issued pending suit without any explanation and the reason which has been canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants is also not a justifiable explanation.”

Mother Is Natural Guardian Of Girl Aged Below 5 Yrs, Disputed Separation Deed Giving Custody To Father No Bar: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Kinjal v State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 57

The Gujarat High Court has held that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act that the mother is the natural guardian of a girl aged below five years, and that the father cannot take care of such a girl child in a way the mother can.

It further ruled that father seeking custody based on disputed separation deed claiming mother voluntarily agreed to hand over custody would not be a bar to the maintainability of the mother's habeas corpus petition. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking custody of her four-year-old daughter, alleging that her estranged husband had unlawfully retained custody after fraudulently obtaining her signature on a separation deed.

Dacoity Charge Fails After One Of Five Accused Acquitted, Gujarat High Court Sustains Robbery Conviction

Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Vishalkumar Somchandra Shah & Ors. and Batch

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 58

The Gujarat High Court set aside dacoity conviction after charge against one of the five co-accused was not proved and hence the offence, which requires a minimum of five persons, could not be proved by the prosecution.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Division Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani observed:

"The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 395 which provides a punishment for dacoity. Dacoity has already been defined under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, which says that when five or more persons conjointly commit or persons conjointly committee or attempting to commit robbery, and the persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity. In the facts of the case, as discussed in the preceding para of the judgment, the charge under Section 395 qua accused no.5 Lata @ Muskan has not been believed and she has been acquitted of all the charges. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 395 can be committed only if the number of persons in the robbery is not less than five, and therefore, so far as the appellants are concerned, they cannot be held guilty for the offence of dacoity because number of accused is less than five".

'Each Day's Delay Will Add To Agony': Gujarat High Court Permits Termination Of 15-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Survivor

Case Title: ABC vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 59

The Gujarat High Court directed medical termination of a minor rape survivor's 15-week pregnancy observing that "each day's delay will add" to her "agony".

Justice M.R. Mengdey observed:

“Considering the fact that each day's delay will add to the victim's agony, the following directions are issued :

(i) The victim is permitted to get the pregnancy terminated at the Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod. The termination of pregnancy be carried out with all the necessary medical facilities available at the disposal of the Hospital and on ensuring proper care in pre-termination and post termination periods.

(ii) On production of this order, the Superintendent of the Zydus Medical College and Hospital, shall take immediate measures for constituting a medical team for conducting the procedure.

(iii) The victim shall file an appropriate undertaking, authorizing to conduct the surgery at her risk.

(iv) If the baby is alive at birth, the hospital shall ensure that the baby is offered the best medical treatment available, so that it develops into a healthy child.”

2002 Gujarat Riots: High Court Upholds Murder Acquittal Of Two, Cites State's Failure To Prove Where Body Was Recovered From

Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Gulabchand Johrilal Jayswal & Anr.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 60

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of two in a murder case connected to the 2002 post Godhra train burning communal riots, finding that the prosecution's case was riddled with hearsay evidence, material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, as well as the failure to establish where dead body was recovered from.

Pointing out these infirmities, the Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Mengdey and Justice Mool Chand Tyagi observed:

"The prosecution also examined P.W.5, Girishchandra Chhaganlal Ravat, the Investigating Officer, at Exh.23. He deposed that he conducted the investigation and, upon completion thereof, filed the chargesheet. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware from where the dead body was recovered. He further admitted that the inquest panchnama was drawn at the Civil Hospital and that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 11 to 12 days. He also admitted that there was no explanation on record for such delay. The panchnama of the place of incident was proved at Exh.16. A perusal thereof reveals that nothing incriminating was found or recorded at the scene. The inquest panchnama at Exh.17 indicates that it was drawn on 01.03.2002 at the Civil Hospital. In light of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish from where the dead body was recovered. The panchnama of the place of incident is devoid of any incriminating material, and the inquest panchnama was drawn at the Civil Hospital. P.Ws.2 and 3 are hearsay witnesses and not eye-witnesses to the incident"

'Days Of Deepfakes': Gujarat High Court Rejects PIL Filed Solely Based On WhatsApp Video Alleging Illegal Demolition Of College Building

Case Title: Luhar Jayatibhai Jugabhai vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 61

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL alleging illegal demolition of a college building based on a video received by the litigant over WhatsApp, observing that in the age of "deepfake"— images, videos and audios can be edited or generated using artificial intelligence (AI) to target any person.

The court also said that such videos are circulated and made viral by people wherein none of whom can vouch for their authenticity.

The plea asserted that on February 4, the petitioner received a video on WhatsApp alleging that demolition work of a building of Gujarat College is being done without any tender proceedings, and that the scrap of the building was being taken away by someone with the collusion of government officers and College Principal.

Unregistered Nikahnama, Lack Of Marriage Photo Or Service Record Entry Can't Defeat Widow's Pension Claim: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Farzanabanu Mohammadhanif Shaikh v Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 62

The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of family pension on the ground that the marriage was not solemnized as it was not reflected in the employee's service records or supported by photographs is “highly improper and unjust”.

In doing so the court directed the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to treat the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the corporation's deceased employee and grant her pensionary benefits.

Litigants Can't Plead Ignorance When Judgments Are Uploaded Online: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Restore Suit Dismissed For Default

Case Title: LR of Sardar Himmatbhai Khokar & Ors. v. LR of Jesangbhai Amthabhai & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 63

The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order which refused to condone delay of 14 months and 15 days to restore a civil suit which was dismissed for default, observing that litigants cannot evade responsibility by blaming their advocates claiming ignorance of court orders uploaded online in the digital era.

Emphasizing the duty of litigants to remain vigilant about their own cases, Justice Devan M Desai observed:

“…blaming learned advocate by a litigant without any evidence / base is nothing but shirking from the responsibilities to remain present in the case and getting updates about proceedings.In the modern era, all judgments and orders are uploaded on the Web-Sites of all Courts. Therefore, no litigant can be permitted to find excuse on the ground that he was not appraised of the judgment and order.”

Order 43 Rule 1(c) CPC | Appeal Maintainable Against Rejection Of Delay Condonation In Plea For Restoration Of Suit: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Rathva Meenaben Pahadsinh v Solanki Karansinh Gemalsinh & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 64

The Gujarat High Court has held that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting condonation of delay in filing an application for restoring a suit which was dismissed for default, holding that such rejection effectively amounts to dismissal of the restoration application itself.

The question involved petition was whether a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is maintainable in cases where an application for condonation of delay for setting aside the dismissal of the suit is rejected.

Dying Declaration Proves Assailant, Not Intention To Kill: Gujarat High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide

Case Title: Raval Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai Virchandbhai v. State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 65

The Gujarat High Court modified a murder conviction into culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that although the dying declaration established the accused's role in causing injuries, the overall circumstances reflected absence of intention to kill.

Allowing the appeal partly, the Division Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R.T. Vacchani specifically observed:

“While the dying declarations provide a strong evidentiary foundation linking the accused to the crime, the surrounding circumstances of the incident cannot be overlooked while determining the appropriate classification of the offence. The record shows that the quarrel erupted suddenly from what began as mutual joking and exchange of abuses, with no prior enmity or premeditation on record. The accused is said to have become provoked only after the deceased refused to retaliate with similar abuses, leading to the impulsive act of pulling out the knife from his pocket and inflicting multiple blows in the heat of passion...The dying declarations, though reliable to prove the authorship of the injuries, do not by themselves elevate the offence to murder where the overall facts and circumstances demonstrate absence of the requisite intention to kill and presence of sudden provocation without premeditation.”

Gujarat High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed On Officer Despite Exoneration, Notes CM's Approval Was Obliterated Using Whitener

Case Title: F H Shaikh v State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 66

The Gujarat High Court has quashed disciplinary penalty imposed on a Class-I officer over certain alleged irregularities, after finding that despite the competent authority approving his exoneration the order was never communicated to him.

The court expressed shocked after noting that the Chief Minister's signature on the file was “obliterated by using whitener,” raising serious concerns about safety of important public files and fairness of disciplinary process.

Sentence For Subsequent Conviction Must Run Concurrently With Life Term: Gujarat High Court Orders Release Of Convict

Case Title: Ramjanbhai Hasambhai Khraj vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 67

The Gujarat High Court ordered release of a murder convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was later awarded separate two-year sentence by the trial court for absconding while on temporary bail.

In doing so, the Court found a “grave error” committed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in directing the subsequent sentence to run consecutively, holding that under 427(2) of the CrPC the later sentence is required to run concurrently, as the detention of the petitioner in the second offence after completion of the imprisonment becomes “illegal”.

'Glaring Case Of State Apathy': Gujarat High Court Rejects Appeal Filed With 837-Days Delay, Warns Officers Against Unproductive Litigation

Case Title: State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Kishanbhai Nanalal Shah

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 68

The Gujarat High Court issued a stern warning to the State officers and directed the Government Pleader to instruct all Assistant Government Pleaders to remain attentive while drafting delay condonation applications, after finding that an appeal was filed with an unexplained delay of 837 days contrary to the State Litigation Policy.

The Court was hearing an application seeking to condone delay of 837 days in filing the State appeal against a single judge's order which had set aside the Revenue Department's decision declaring a sale deed invalid. For context, the authority concerned–Collector, Kheda at Nadiad had suo motu cancelled mutation entries and directed proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

S.163A MV Act | Borrower Driving Owner's Vehicle Not 'Third Party'; Legal Heirs Can't Claim No-Fault Compensation: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Manjuben alias Manjulaben Shantilal Garasia & Ors. v. Sirajbhai Imamuddin Luhar & Anr.

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69

The Gujarat High Court has held that the legal representatives of a deceased borrower-driver cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer, reiterating that a person who borrows a vehicle and drives it “steps into the shoes of the owner” and cannot be treated as a third party.

Section 163A provides for compensation on a no-fault basis, allowing victims of motor accidents (or their legal heirs) to claim compensation without having to prove negligence of the driver or owner.

'Judicial Dishonesty': Gujarat High Court Disapproves Of Trial Court Keeping Suit Pending Despite Completion Of Submissions By Parties

Case title: Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited v/s Bank of India

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15335 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 105

The Gujarat High Court recently expressed its disapproval with trial court in not pronouncing judgment in a suit despite parties completing their submissions, adjourning the matter on succssive dates for "further arguments".

This the court said was "judicial dishonesty" on the part of the trial court in not pronouncing the verdict. The high court further warned the trial court not to keep matters pending for pronouncement of judgment beyond reasonable period after completion of submissions.

Disproportionate Assets: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction Of Judicial Officer Whose Wife Received ₹7 Lakh 'Gift' From Non-Relative

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused In Custody Along With Her Child

Case title: Pravinbanu Ibrahim Sultan Mamrej Kureshi v/s State of Gujarat

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8187 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 132

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused who was found in possession of a contraband, after noting that she had three minor children wherein one of them was presently with her in judicial custody.

Though the court "prima facie" noted that the offence was serious and her as the person in conscious possession of the contraband cannot be ignored, the court noted that she had no criminal antecedents, is a woman accused and the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act were fulfilled.

Firing In Air During Wedding Without Intention To Cause Injury Not Enough To Constitute Attempt To Murder Charge: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Dilipsinh @ Dako Kishorsinh Rathod & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 135 of 2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 133

The Gujarat High Court has held that merely firing in air during a wedding function without any intention to cause injury to anyone is not enough to constitute charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

In doing so the court quashed charge of attempt to murder against six persons who were booked for firing in the air during a wedding function, noting that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause any injury to anyone and the surrounding circumstances in the case did not infer such intention.

Able-Bodied Husband Can't Deny Maintenance To Wife Having Cancer Claiming Closure Of Business Without Proof: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 175 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 134

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a man's appeal challenging family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife–under treatment for cancer, noting that closure of the husband's business or recession, in absence of any material, was not a ground to deny maintenance specially in view of the able-bodied principle.

In doing so, the court, referring to various judgments underscored that the law was clear wherein it was the duty of the husband to maintain his wife.

Will Withdraw Order Taking Over Private School After Stabbing Incident, Take Fresh Decision: State Tells Gujarat High Court

Case title: Seventh Day Adventist Higher Secondary School & Ors. State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/LPA/296/2026 IN R/SCA/836/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 135

The Gujarat government told the High Court on Tuesday (April 28) that it will withdraw its December 15, 2025 order taking over the management of a private school in Ahmedabad following the stabbing of a Class 10 student by another in August last year, and take a fresh decision.

The court was hearing the school's appeal challenging a single judge's order which had refused to grant ad-interim relief to permit admission of new students in the school's writ petition.

'Technology Can't Be Hurdle': Gujarat HC Sets Aside Family Court's 'Overly Technical' Conditions For Husband's VC Appearance In Divorce Case

Case title: X & Anr v/s NA

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5760 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 136

The Gujarat High Court permitted a husband to appear before the family court via video conference in proceedings for divorce by mutual, observing that the family court had adopted a hyper-technical approach over use of VC by the husband to appear in the matrimonial proceedings.

The court noted that the family court had issued 15 directions including appointment of a Court Commissioner to record assent of husband which was unknown procedure, adding that technology should serve as handmaiden to justice not a hurdle in the path and must be accessible to litigants.

“No Sane Person Would De-Board Running Train”: Gujarat High Court Upholds ₹8 Lakh Railway Accident Compensation, Rejects Suicide Theory

Case title: Union of India v/s Mandabai w/o Sukhdev Chavan (Mother of Decd)

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 137

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Railways appeal against an order awarding compensation to the mother of a deceased passenger who fell after receiving a jolt and lost his life, rejecting the Railways claim that the deceased might have committed suicide or fallen down due to his own negligence.

In doing so the court remarked that no sane person would attempt to de-board or alight from a running train.

The court was hearing Railways appeal challenging Railway Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs with 9% interest to the kin of the deceased from the date of incident i.e. 17.04.2017 till date of realization.

'Honey Trap Case': Gujarat High Court Quashes Rape FIR Citing Consensual Relationship, Notes Complainant Tried To Extort Money

Case title: Manojbhai Kachrabhai Vasoya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 10969 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 138

The Gujarat High Court quashed a rape FIR against a man, after noting that it was a case of 'honey trap' wherein the complainant had consensual relations with the accused and subsequently tried to extort money from him.

The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 376(1)(rape), 114(Abettor present when offence is committed), 506(1)(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC making accusations against four persons, wherein petitioner is named as accused no.1. Against the FIR the petitioner had approached the high court.

Deceased Railway Employee's Married Daughter Who Had Customary Divorce Entitled To Family Pension: Gujarat High Court

13 Yrs On, Gujarat High Court Acquits Man In Murder Case, Says Prosecution "Suppressed" Alibi Evidence

UAPA | Right To Default Bail Can't Be Denied Solely On Technical Grounds: Gujarat High Court Condones 146-Day Delay In NIA Appeal

Death Of 11 Girls After Staircase Collapsed In Hostel: Gujarat High Court Discharges Engineers Of Culpable Homicide, Adds Negligence Charge

“Even A Single Vote May Swing The Contest”: Gujarat High Court Permits Detenue To Cast Vote In Panchayat Poll

Case title: Pranav Prabhudas Chandarana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 7423 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 163

The Gujarat High Court in an interim order on Monday (May 25) permitted a detained man to cast his vote in the election to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman of Junagadh Taluka Panchayat, observing that the positions were important wherein even a single vote may swing the contest one way or the other.

The court was hearing the man's habeas corpus plea wherein he contended that an FIR was registered and he was detained on 24.05.2026 whereas the election is slated to be held at 11:00 A.M today. The State submitted that FIR has been lodged on 22.05.2026 and therefore, the petition is filed belatedly only to stall the election process.

Custodial Death | Lalita Kumari Judgment Does Not Say Deceased's Kin Can Directly Invoke A.226 Over Failure In Lodging FIR: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat

R/SCR.A/7352/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 164

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking immediate registration of an FIR in an alleged custodial death case of a man, while permitting the kin of the deceased to take recourse to the statutory remedies available to them under BNSS.

In doing so the court observed that while Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh judgment mandates registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, it does not provide a separate mechanism if police refuses to lodge an FIR nor there is a mandate provided that on failure of lodging an FIR the next of kin can directly invoke Article 226 jurisdiction of the high court.

Freezing Bank Account Without Proving Account Holder's Involvement In Criminal Case Adversely Affects Fundamental Rights: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Arjun Kuruveetil Peethmbaran  v/s The Police Inspector & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1961 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 165

Directing the de-freezing of a man's bank account, the Gujarat High Court observed that while investigating agency has power to direct freezing, however without specifying the quantum of suspected amount or without establishing involvement of the account holder in any criminal activity, results in adversely affecting his fundamental rights.

The court was hearing a man's plea seeking de-freezing of his bank account over a cyber crime complaint pertaining to alleged suspicious transaction of Rs. 1100; in the interim the petitioner had sought a direction to the bank to permit him to operate the account by keeping only the disputed amount of 1,100/- on hold.

Person Accused Of Offences Not Mentioned Under Section 82(4) CrPC Not Deemed As Proclaimed Offender: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rajeshbhai Laljibhai Patel v/s v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7316 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 166

The Gujarat High Court has said that a person accused of only those offences enumerated under Section 82(4) can be declared a proclaimed offender noting that the nature of the offences was serious also carrying the safeguard of an inquiry as provided under the provision.

It further said that a person accused of offences other than the ones under section 82(4) and against whom a proclamation has been published under section 82(1) can be called a 'Proclaimed Person'.

2013 Rape Case: Asaram Withdraws Plea For Extension Of Temporary Bail From Gujarat High Court

Case title: Asharam  v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 

CR.MA/1/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 167

Asaram, who has been convicted and sentenced to life by Gandhinagar court in a 2013 rape case, withdrew from Gujarat High Court on Friday (June 12) his application seeking extension of temporary bail.

The counsel appearing for Asaram submitted before a division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice LS Pirzada that the Rajasthan High Court had recently upheld Asaram's conviction and life sentence in a separate rape case and he is presently in jail in Jodhpur

"Under instructions I may be permitted to withdraw the application for extension of temporary bail," the counsel said.

Electricity Company 'Absolutely Liable' In Electrocution Death Case, Can't Escape By Blaming Deceased's Negligence: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Ltd. through v/s Naniba WD/O Gemarsinh Rupsinh Sodha & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 of 2012

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168

The Gujarat High Court has held that when energy transmitted through electricity line causes injury or death of a human being, who unknowingly comes in contact with it, then it is primary liability of the Electricity Company to compensate the sufferer as per the principle of absolute liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Gu) 168]

The court was hearing an appeal by Gujarat Energy Transmission Co. Ltd. (GETCO), challenging a judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed by trial court which had directed GETCO to pay Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization for the death of Gemarsinh Sodha.

After 35 Years, Gujarat High Court Rejects Baroda Royal Family's Claim Over Property Belonging To Temple Trust

Case title: Kishanji Maganji Thakore & Ors. v/s Collector of Baroda & Ors. and batch

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1611 of 1991

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 169

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a 35-year-old Vadodara Court order dismissing a plea filed by the royal family of the erstwhile State of Baroda challenging orders passed by the charity commissioner's office which had declared that a parcel of land in Vadodara belongs to Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Temple Trust. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 169]

The court was hearing a batch of appeals challenging a 1991 judgment of the Joint District Judge, Vadodara which had dismissed five applications filed by the respective appellants – original petitioners including the then Maharaja of Baroda as well as subsequent buyers of the land, confirming the 1985 judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Baroda.

Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate, Finds He Was Falsely Implicated For Representing One Of The Accused

Case title: Mohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 211 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR against an advocate, after noting that the CCTV footage reflected that he was not present at the place where he had allegedly threatened the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170]

The advocate claimed that the complainant had falsely implicated him as he represented one of the accused in the case lodged by complainant.

The complainant on the other alleged that the advocate had threatened him on the third floor of the Sessions Court. It was further alleged that the advocate had conspired with few persons and inflicted injuries with sword on the head of the complainant.

Family Courts Are Duty Bound To Accept 'Mubarat' Divorce Of Muslim Couple: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s Marufa

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when marriage between a Muslim couple, governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, then Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171]

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:

"...when the marriage between two persons, who are governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between the parties. The High Court of Karnataka and other High Courts (Shabnam Parveen Ahmad vs. Mohammed Saliya Shaikh (Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4711 of 2022 dtd 26.03.2024), (Mohamed Saif Pasha vs. Madiha Arif (2021 SCC OnLine Madras 16570), on the identical issue, held and observed that, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreements of the parties and declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed".

After 47 Years, Gujarat High Court Holds Baroda's Narsinhji Temple As Public Trust; Rejects Claim By Late Priest's Son Over Temple Properties

Case title: Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 of 1979 and batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172

The Gujarat High Court rejected the 47-year-old appeals filed by the legal heirs of the late priest of Narsinhji temple in Baroda who had claimed that the properties of the temple were private properties and belonged to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172]

In doing so the court held that the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the appellant, the son of the late Mahant, was neither legally appointed priest of the temple nor was he declared as a Chela (disciple) of the late Mahant. The court further held that appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his case.

Justice JC Doshi observed:

"...the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the deity is a public deity is no more res-integra. The issue was squarely decided by the Division Bench of this Court...the status of late Mahant Dayaram, who at the relevant time was the appellant, was no more than a Pujari of the temple and the respondents therein were held to be the trustees of the public trust...The present appellant – Mr. Vijay is neither legally appointed Poojari of the temple nor he is declared as a Chela of the late Mahant Dayaram".

Family Of Authorised Catering Hawker Who Fell From Train Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Union of India v/s Meenadevi W/O Hariprasad Gupta & Ors.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173

The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order holding that an authorized hawker employed for catering service by the Railways is entitled to accident compensation under the Railways Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173]

In doing so the court upheld an order passed by the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the wife of deceased man employed by catering company, who had died after he fell from a running train while crossing compartments.

Justice JC Doshi observed that Railway administration failed to prove that deceased had attempted suicide or attempted no cause injury despite knowing damage. It said that the principle of 'no fault' liability fundamentally displaces traditional causation requirements, establishing that compensation is available irrespective of fault attribution.

Section 66E IT Act | Clicking Photos Of Question Paper During Exam & Sending It Via WhatsApp Not Violation Of Privacy: Gujarat High Court

Case title: Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 8320 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174

The Gujarat High Court has quashed charge of violation of privacy under Information Technology Act lodged against two men, wherein one of them was accused of clicking photographs of a question paper during an examination and sending it to his co-accused brother via WhatsApp. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174]

The applicants had sought quashing of a November 26, 2018 FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC as well as under Section 66-E (Punishment for violation of privacy) of Information Technology Act

Gujarat High Court Quashes Abetment Of Suicide FIR, Says Accused Lodging Land Grab Case Against Deceased Not Enough To Invoke Offence

Case title: Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 23600 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of abetting complainant's suicide against whom the former had lodged a land grab case, observing merely lodging of land grabbing complaint does not mean that it was intended to compel the deceased to commit suicide as the petitioner was only invoking legal right. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175]

The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 306(abetment of suicide), 506(2) (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC over allegations of harassing the deceased by lodging a land grabbing against the latter pursuant to which the deceased allegedly committed suicide.

Gujarat High Court Asks State To Decide In 6 Months Haren Pandya Murder Convict's Remission Plea

Case title: Mohammed Asgarali Mohammad Vajirali v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 12305 of 2025,

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12305 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176

The Gujarat High Court has asked the state government to decide within six months the remission plea filed by Mohammed Asgar Ali convicted and sentenced to life for the murder of former state Home Minister Haren Pandya. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176]

Justice MR Mengdey in his order observed that from the jail remarks submitted on record it appeared that the process for consideration of the petitioner's case for grant of remission is underway and the opinion from the Advisory Committee has been received and the same shall be put up before the concerned authority in the near future.