Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104Nominal IndexThe Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v/s Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 100Hasmukhbhai Bhurabhai Vasava v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 101Manojbhai...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Nominal Index
The Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v/s Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
Hasmukhbhai Bhurabhai Vasava v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
Manojbhai Kanjibhai Rupareliya v/s Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Pareshbhai Shankerbhai Taviyad v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
Akshay Pitamber Savarkar & Anr. v/s Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Judgments/Orders
Case title: The Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v/s Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22226 of 2019 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
The Gujarat High Court upheld a tribunal's order directing a minority school to issue a fresh show-cause notice to a teacher–dismissed for misconduct, before directing punishment, noting that the dismissal order was passed by a person who was not properly authorized by school management as per Gujarat Secondary Education Act.
Justice Maulik J Shelat in his order observed that the resolution wherein a person (Mr Raj who served dismissal order to teacher) was authorized by the school's governing body, suggested that though the body's meeting chaired by the President to discuss the final action to be taken against Teacher had a quorum, however the resolution was signed by only one person.
Case title: Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7162 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police constable after conviction in corruption case, observing that disciplinary authority can decide on the delinquent's conduct and award punishment without affording an opportunity of hearing due to exclusionary affect of second proviso to Article 311(2)(a) of Constitution.
Justice Maulik J Shelat referred to Supreme Court's Constitution bench decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and said:
"It is deduced from the aforementioned dictum that in a case where Government Servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, the Disciplinary Authority only requires to consider whether the conduct of delinquent leading to the conviction warrants the imposition of a penalty. For that purpose, it will have to pursue the judgment of the criminal Court concerned and consider the all facts and circumstances of the case. As held, this has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority ex parte and by itself. Once the Disciplinary Authority reaches to the conclusion that government servant's conduct was such as it requires his dismissal etc., same should be decided by him. It is clearly held that the aforesaid has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority without hearing the concerned government servant, due to reason of exclusionary effect of the second proviso to Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum, there cannot be any second view which can be taken at least by this Court, rather it requires to follow and apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) in appropriate case, such as present one".
Case title: X v/s Y
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15369 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
While considering a custody case the Gujarat High Court observed that in such matters family court must adopt sensitive and child-centric approach wherein proceedings are conducted in a manner which minimizes trauma and prioritizes child's welfare above the rights of the litigating parties.
The court was hearing a mother's plea challenging a family court's order which had directed her to remain present on every working Thursday in the court along with her 2-and-a-half-year old son between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. so that the minor's paternal grandfather can have access to the child. Further the family court had restrained the woman's second husband from being present along with her.
Case title: Hasmukhbhai Bhurabhai Vasava v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 816 of 2001
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
The Gujarat High Court upheld a 2001 trial court order convicting a husband to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, who assaulted his wife after he found her in a compromising position with another man in the former's house, remarking that this could be considered as "grave and sudden provocation".
In doing so the court said that the case falls under Section 304-part II IPC as intention along with knowledge to the act and cause his wife's death cannot be attributed to the husband.
For context, Section 304-Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder wherein a person can be imprisoned for term which may extend to 10 years or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Justice Gita Gopi in her order noted that accused had raised a defence that act of beating his wife was under grave and sudden provocation, as he had seen his wife and her paramour in a compromising condition.
Electricity Connection Can't Be Denied For Want Of Co-Sharer's Consent: Gujarat High Court
Case title: Manojbhai Kanjibhai Rupareliya v/s Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15830 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
The Gujarat High Court has held that the question of ownership or right of occupancy over a property has no nexus with the grant of an electricity connection to a consumer who is otherwise entitled.
It further said that a company cannot insist on consent of other co-sharers of a property to provide electricity connection to a consumer.
In the present case the petitioner had sought for an electricity connection for a land but the electricity company had sent a communication stating that a well situated on the land was jointly owned by another person and thus his consent was required to proceed further.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband's Conviction For Strangulating Wife, Staging Death As Suicide
Case title: Pareshbhai Shankerbhai Taviyad v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1358 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a trial court order convicting a husband for his wife's murder by strangulating her with a rope but staging it to look like suicide by hanging.
In doing so the court held that the prosecution had proved its burden establishing homicidal strangulation as the cause of death, adding that the accused's defence of wife committing suicide was only an afterthought.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachchani in its order held:
"This Court is in complete agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the initial burden always lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case. However, in the present matter the prosecution has successfully discharged its initial burden by leading cogent medical, forensic and ocular evidence establishing homicidal strangulation and staging of suicide. The defence of suicide is an afterthought and is not supported by any evidence. The appellant's conduct of immediately lodging a false report and his evasive behaviour at the hospital are consistent only with guilt and the desire to screen himself from punishment. The learned sessions court has therefore rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC for intentional murder during the quarrel, with full knowledge that dori/string/rope strangulation was likely to cause death. The sessions Court acquitted on Section 182 IPC, holding the accidental death report was in self-defence without proved mens rea to mislead, which finding is not challenged by the State".
Case title: Akshay Pitamber Savarkar & Anr. v/s Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15710 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
The Gujarat High Court recently paved way for the adoption and immigration process of twin children who had been adopted by their Australia-based uncle and his wife after the twins' mother had passed away.
The Petitioners were facing difficulty as the State of Victoria, where they reside, was not accepting applications to adopt a child from India that are completed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted that in the present case the, the twins were adopted prior to the actual execution of the deed but the deed was executed on 29.09.2022.
"...I am of the opinion that there can be no hurdle in the way of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. I direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and issue the necessary certificates as required by the Australian authorities to fulfill and comply with the requirements. All the necessary documentary evidences were already furnished by the petitioner before respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, in case any of difficulty, the petitioners may again supply the necessary documentary evidences within a period of one week from today and on receipt of the said application, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner herein having regard to the relevant provisions of the Regulations 2022 and in accordance with law bearing in mind the facts that the adoption took place on 29.09.2022 and the children were born on 22.02.2022".