Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 55 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69Nominal IndexSangada Hansaben Malabhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 55Executive Engineer G.E.B. (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) & Ors. v. Mulraj Ice Factory, Proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 56Kinjal v State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 57State of Gujarat...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 55 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders This Week
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.