Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 32 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69Nominal Index Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v State of Gujrat and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 32Nagar 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) 34Bhimaben wd/o Bhagoji Raghoji Uttekar & Ors. v....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 32 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
Nominal Index
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
Judgements/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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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".
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.”
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"
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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”.
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.
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.