Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151-2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156Nominal IndexAnkush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151Dolly Khilankumar Vadalia Nee Dolly Ketan Barai v/s Union of India & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 152Bharatbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 153Shardaben Maganbhai Zala & Ors. v/s Divisional Controller, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 154Patel...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151-2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
Nominal Index
Ankush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
Dolly Khilankumar Vadalia Nee Dolly Ketan Barai v/s Union of India & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
Bharatbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
Shardaben Maganbhai Zala & Ors. v/s Divisional Controller, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Patel Jashiben Govindbhai Wife of Decd. & Ors. v/s Shaitan Singh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
X v/s High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Ankush Kapoor v/s NIA & ANR
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1104 of 2026 In
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
The Gujarat High Court has condoned 146 day delay in filing appeal against trial court order extending accused's judicial custody over non-completion of investigation within 90 days under UAPA and NDPS Act.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani referred to Section 21(5) of the NI Act which states that every appeal under this section shall be preferred within 30 days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from.
Case title: Dolly Khilankumar Vadalia Nee Dolly Ketan Barai v/s Union of India & ORS.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9457 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Mozambique-born woman's plea, residing in Rajkot, seeking issuance of Indian passport, after noting that the petitioner was unable to prove Indian citizenship by birth or by descent as required under the Citizenship Act.
The court noted that the petitioner had failed to provide proof of registration of her birth at an Indian Consulate within one year of birth or thereafter with the approval of the Central Government.
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order said:
"The petitioner applied for the passport before the respondent authority. However, the respondent authority raised objections on the ground that the petitioner was born in Mozambique and required her to furnish documents such as cancellation of the emergency certificate, consular registration of birth, or proof of Indian citizenship. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Commission of Mozambique and was informed that there is no procedure for cancellation of the emergency certificate and that she is not a citizen of Mozambique.
Upon examination of petitioner's application, the authority found that petitioner does not qualify as an Indian citizen under the proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as petitioner failed to provide proof of registration of her birth at an Indian Consulate within one year of birth or thereafter with the approval of the Central Government. The petitioner's passport application was closed and she was directed to produce a certificate of registration or naturalization of Indian citizenship. It also appears from the record that the parents of the petitioner had not followed the procedure to acquire Indian citizenship by descent for the petitioner when the petitioner was born".
Case title: Bharatbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 264 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
The Gujarat High Court discharged the financier of a building in Ahmedabad, for offence of culpable homicide and criminal conspiracy, booked after the building suffered severe damage in the 2001 earthquake in the State claiming 11 lives.
In doing so the court said that charge-sheet did not disclose any evidence to suggest that the petitioner was either the owner, developer, or contractor of the construction. It further ruled that to invoke Section 304 IPC, prosecution had to prove existence of mens rea/intention that the act was likely to cause death which was not established herein.
Case title: Shardaben Maganbhai Zala & Ors. v/s Divisional Controller
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1315 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 538 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
The Gujarat High Court upheld an order by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner who applied principle of notional extension of employment and awarded over Rs. 6 Lakh to the kin of a deceased driver of transport corporation who accidentally fell off the roof of a bus while sleeping in absence of a rest room.
In doing so the court noted that the Corporation had not led any evidence prohibiting the driver from staying with the bus, or prescribing what should be done when rest rooms are not available in remote villages, or how the security of the bus is to be maintained in such places where proper bus stand facilities are not available.
Case title: Patel Jashiben Govindbhai Wife of Decd. & Ors. v/s Shaitan Singh & Anr.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
The Gujarat High Court overturned the finding of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the driver of a two-wheeler who had met with an accident with a stationary truck at night time parked without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction.
In doing so the court held that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5 Lakh to over Rs. 9 Lakh.
Case title: X v/s High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5112 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
The Gujarat High Court has recommended initiation of contempt proceedings against an additional district judge who alleged in his written submissions asserting that a senior high court judge has "good control over all the branches of the High Court" and that he has "control of his junior judges".
This the court said is an act which scandalizes and lowers the authority of the Court and thus the high court directed that the matter be placed before the concerned bench which has the contempt roster for further proceedings.