Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131Nominal IndexPremjibhai Hirabhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125GEB v/s Nirmal Rajendra Madela ,WD/O Rajendra Sitaram Mandela & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 126X v/s Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 127Sant Shri Asharam Ashram through Trustee and Authorized Signatory Rajeshkumar Shadilal Bharti v/s State of Gujarat...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
Nominal Index
Premjibhai Hirabhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
GEB v/s Nirmal Rajendra Madela ,WD/O Rajendra Sitaram Mandela & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
X v/s Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
Sant Shri Asharam Ashram through Trustee and Authorized Signatory Rajeshkumar Shadilal Bharti v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
Namori Hajibhai Bukera v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s Alisher Subhanali Ansari & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Premjibhai Hirabhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 725 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order convicting a judicial officer in a disproportionate assets case, after noting the officer could not prove that his wife was legally entitled to receive a gift from a person who was not his wife's blood relation or family member.
It was alleged that the appellant while serving as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi, Valsad between 10.06.2002 to 01.10.2002, in abetment with accused No.2–his brother-in-law and accused No.3–his wife, while serving as a public servant had abused this position and illegally demanded and accepted bribe from prosecution witnesses.
Case title: GEB v/s Nirmal Rajendra Madela ,WD/O Rajendra Sitaram Mandela & Ors.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1406 of 2002
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order granting compensation of Rs. 3 Lakh to the family of a man who was electrocuted while assisting his brother in repairing a television antenna on the terrace of a flat, after the antenna came into contact with an electric wire above it.
In doing so the court applied the principle of strict and absolute liability and directed the trial court to disburse the compensation to the claimants.
On October 30,1988 brothers Nitin Sitaram and Rajendra Sitaram lost their lives after being electrocuted on the terrace of a flat, wherein Nitin was repairing the television antenna on the terrace and Rajendra was assisting him.
Case title: X v/s Y & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3285 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
The Gujarat High Court upheld a report by a cooperative society's Internal Complaints Committee which had rejected a woman employee's sexual harassment complaint against two officials–including a woman, as false and baseless.
In doing so the court found that the ICC was unbiased and had complied with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. It further warned against operation of "reverse bias" against the male accused in such cases, which if extended by adjudicating forums might be counterproductive as it may create more glass ceilings thereby creating fetters in employment of genuine employees.
Case title: Sant Shri Asharam Ashram through Trustee and Authorized Signatory Rajeshkumar Shadilal Bharti v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 107 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
The Gujarat High Court dismissed pleas moved by 'Sant Shri Asharam Ashram' challenging revenue and eviction proceedings, for encroaching upon a large area of land and after finding that the trust had violated allotment conditions and regularization orders.
Upholding the findings of the single judge, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner – trust not only violated the conditions of the orders of allotment / regularization orders of grant of Government land, but also encroached upon a substantial area of open land surrounding the allotted lands, even the land from the riverbed, for its use and illegal occupation over the period of years. The petitioner is found to be a habitual offender, who had earlier encroached on a large area of about 51,101 sq.mtrs of open land forming part of Sabarmati river, which was proved in the eviction proceedings conducted under Section 61 of the Code in the year 2009. Even otherwise, the allegations of breach of conditions of the allotment / regularization orders have been found to be proved by the learned Single Judge as well as by us in view of the discussion made hereinabove".
Case title: Namori Hajibhai Bukera v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 2597 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
The Gujarat High Court upheld trial court's murder conviction awarded to a man who had shot at the deceased with an unlicensed firearm, after noting that there was consistent evidence supporting that the shot was fired with intention and knowledge to cause death.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:
"The fact that the accused had no license for the firearm, gave no explanation for possessing it, and that the gunshot fired by him caused the death of the deceased is clearly proved. The time, place and motive of the incident are fully supported by consistent oral, medical, documentary and scientific evidence, as to the fact of the appellant-accused No.1 having fired the fatal shot with intention and knowledge, thereby committing murder under Section 302 of IPC and the offence under Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence against the said accused does not warrant any interference.
Case title: Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5789 of 2006
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a 21-year-old water bill of Rs. 146.79 Lakh issued to Reliance Industries by the state government for arrears of water charges between 1997-2005, noting that the same was based on a government resolution which was not acted upon at the time and the transaction had been already concluded.
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted that the transaction had concluded in June 2005 on payment of charges by the petitioner and had the petitioner been aware that it would have been charged more in accordance with the 2002 Government Resolution, it would have conducted itself differently.
Case title: Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors. v/s Alisher Subhanali Ansari & Anr.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2516 of 1999
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that Specific Relief Act mandates that in a suit for specific performance, the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove "continuous readiness and willingness" to perform his part of the contract which the court may infer from facts and circumstances.
The court was hearing two appeals challenging a 1999 order of the civil court decreeing a suit in favour of the plaintiff. The civil court directed defendant no.1 to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, on plaintiff paying remaining amount of sale consideration as per the agreement dated 01.10.1985 with interest @ 9% per annum.