Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 31NOMINAL INDEXMilacron India Private Limited v/s The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 1Shree Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 2Swagat Infrastructure Private Limited v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Ahmedabad 2026...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 31
NOMINAL INDEX
Milacron India Private Limited v/s The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
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
Judgments/Orders
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
7. 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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,
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).
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.
28. 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.
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".
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.
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.