Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54Nominal Index Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40 Gujarat Vidhyapith v. Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 41Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 42Surat Manav Seva Sangh v Employees State Insurance Corporation 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
Nominal Index
Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40
Gujarat Vidhyapith v. Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 41
Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 42
Surat Manav Seva Sangh v Employees State Insurance Corporation 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 43
Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v State of Gujarat and others 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 44
Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 45
Susheel Patil v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia v State of Gujarat and others 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
Krishnan Satishbhai Patel & Anr. v. Pankaj Vasantlal Jain 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
Madhya Gujarati Vij Company Ltd. v M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
Parul University v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
Patel Hasanbhai Alibhai Aadambhai v. Patel Jayeshkumar Ishwarbhai & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
Anjal Balabhaskaran v National Institute Of Design & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
Bhang Anilbhai Govabhai vs State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 40
Observing that a grievance relating to share in property “cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights,” the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings initiated by the State Human Rights Commission in a family property dispute.
In doing so the court also issued detailed directions to regulate the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction while considering cases of human rights violation.
Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the present case was a “clear instance” where the State Human Rights Commission had exercised powers not conferred upon it under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court emphasised that proceedings under the Act are not meant for settlement of private civil disputes and that entertaining such complaints amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Case Title: Gujarat Vidhyapith v. Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 41
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal by Gujarat Vidhyapith challenging a Single Judge's order which had set aside the termination of a long-serving Assistant Librarian and directed payment of back wages and retiral benefits. The Bench made it clear that UGC regulations do not govern non-teaching posts such as Assistant Librarian in the non-teaching cadre.
A Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order passed in a writ petition filed by a former employee of Gujarat Vidhyapith.
Case Title: Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 42
The Gujarat High Court has observed that remand of an accused already in custody beyond the 15-day period prescribed under first proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS is not illegal, and a habeas corpus will not lie unless the remand order is shown to be patently illegal, without jurisdiction or passed mechanically.
A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D.M. Vyas were hearing two connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari (father of the detenus), seeking the release of his sons, who were in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case registered under various provisions of the BNS and the Gujarat Police Act.
Case Title: Surat Manav Seva Sangh v Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 43
Holding that activities of a charitable trust providing diagnostic services within a Government Civil Hospital does not prima facie fall within the definition of “factory” under Employees' State Insurance Act, the Gujarat High Court quashed ESIC's Section 45A orders for payment of contribution dues by trust.
As per Section 2(12) Factory means any premises including the precincts thereof where 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on.
The Bench comprising Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak observed that the authorities had mechanically invoked Sections 45A (Determination of contributions in certain cases where an employer fails to submit returns or obstructs inspection) and 45AA (appellate authority) of the ESI Act without properly examining whether the petitioner's establishment satisfied the statutory definition of a factory. The Court noted that the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to address the foundational issue of coverage.
Quashed FIR For Minor Offence Not Ground To Deny Job In Police Force: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v State of Gujarat and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 44
The Gujarat High Court has held that a candidate selected for the post of Unarmed Police Constable cannot be denied appointment solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, especially when the FIR has been quashed.
In doing so the Court quashed the order refusing appointment and directed reconsideration of the candidate's case.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai was hearing a Special Civil Application filed by Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod challenging the order dated 12.10.2023 whereby he was not permitted to join the post of Unarmed Lokrakshak (police constable) despite being selected.
Case Title: Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar v State of Gujarat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 45
Holding that handicapped staff at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital issuing case papers were only working on a contractual basis, earning a commission and were never appointed through a regular recruitment process, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant them status as government servants or direct regularisation of service.
The Bench comprising Justice Maulik J. Shelat further said that since none of the petitioners were directly appointed by the respondent through due process, i.e., as per recruitment rules but through the Blind People's Association and are receiving their remuneration in the form of commission, their status remains that of 'commission agents' rather than employees in any form.
Case Title: Susheel Patil v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of promotion by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd based on Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) communicated belatedly violates principles of natural justice, and directed reconsideration of an employee's promotion without applying the benchmark requirement.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat was hearing a writ petition filed by Susheel Patil challenging the decision of IRCTC denying him promotion from Grade E-3 to Grade E-4 on the ground that he had not met the benchmark score of 21 out of 25 prescribed under the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012.
Case Title: Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia v State of Gujarat and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking additional ex-gratia compensation under the relief and rehabilitation packages announced for victims of the 2002 Post Godhra train burning communal riots, observing that the prayers were “general and vague in nature not specifying any categories or any deficiencies".
Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that in the absence of material particulars and specific entitlement, no writ of mandamus could be issued directing implementation of government resolutions in a general manner. The Court concluded that the petition was “devoid of merits.”
Case Title: Krishnan Satishbhai Patel & Anr. v. Pankaj Vasantlal Jain
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
The Gujarat High Court has observed that heirs of a party cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree without explaining or showing "sufficient cause" for non-appearance of their mother, despite being represented by an advocate in the court.
Justice Devan M. Desai observed that even if a liberal view is to be adopted while considering restoration applications, “the defendant, at least must show a plausible sufficient cause which prevented the defendant to appear and contest the suit.” The Court said that it cannot presume such cause merely because the legal heirs later claim ignorance of the decree.
Case Title: Madhya Gujarati Vij Company Ltd. v M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
The Gujarat High Court has cautioned Commercial and Trial Court judges across the State after finding drafting errors in a Section 34 order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, directing that its observations be circulated to all district courts to prevent recurrence of such mistakes.
Emphasising the need for judicial diligence, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray observed, “Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, though, we find that there are errors in noting some factual aspects here and there and it seems that the learned Judge has copied certain paragraphs from another of his own judgments rendered on similar point of controversy, but the said errors do not form part of the crucial reasonings of the Court in refusing to set aside the arbitral award. The errors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are clerical/typographical in nature, which could have been corrected had an application been filed by the applicant, without changing the structure of the judgment, i.e. the reasonsing and the conclusion... We would like to add a word of caution for the Judges of the Commercial / Trial Court to be careful in writing their judgments specifically while deciding more than one cases of the similar nature. The learned Judges are required to read the draft judgments carefully, and edit them so as to avoid occurrence of any such mistake.
Case Title: Parul University v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that students who had completed their Homeopathy course under protection of interim court orders cannot be denied license to practice or recognition of their degrees merely because dispute over grant of approval to the college by the regulator remained unresolved.
Considering the plight of students, Justice Nirzar S Desai noted,
“Now, at this stage, though the petitions have remained pending, if the Court considers the merits of the matter and the issues involved and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the petitions do not have any merit, in that case, ultimately, the sufferers would be the students, who are not before the Court…the College would continue to function, and it would be only the students who would suffer...The respondents are directed to grant permission for license to practice as well as the LOP, i.e., Letter of Permission, to the College, and to grant all such other permissions and approvals as may be required for the functioning of the College, as if such permissions had been granted at the relevant point of time".
Case Title: Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli v State of Gujarat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
The Gujarat High Court has observed that "one incident" of a husband slapping his wife on the ground of her staying overnight at parental home without informing him would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Acquitting the husband accused of cruelty and abetment to suicide after 23 years, the court further said that allegation of persistent, unbearable continuous beatings by husband would require cogent evidence to be proved to show that it drove the wife to commit suicide.
Case Title: Patel Hasanbhai Alibhai Aadambhai v. Patel Jayeshkumar Ishwarbhai & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
Emphasizing the distinction between a "mortgage by conditional sale" and a "sale with a condition to repurchase", the Gujarat High Court reiterated that a transaction which creates debtor-creditor relationship and right of redemption subsists in favour of mortgagor, must be treated as a mortgage with conditional sale.
Justice J.C. Doshi referred to Supreme Court's decision in Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai (D) Thr. LRs v. Rahemanbhai M. Shaikh (D) Thr. LRs & Ors., (2016) where the apex court had referred to Mulla's Transfer of Property Act (11th Edition) and had said:
“In a mortgage with conditional sale, the relation of a debtor and a creditor subsists while in a sale with an option of re-purchase, there is no such relationship and the parties stand on an equal footing…the debt subsists as it is a borrowing arrangement…and the right of redemption subsists in favour of the mortgagor despite the expiry of the time stipulated in the contract for its payment...but in a sale with an option of re-purchase, there is no such relationship....original seller must re-purchase the property within the stipulated time period. If he commits a default the option of re-purchase is lost".
Case Title: Anjal Balabhaskaran v National Institute Of Design & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
The Gujarat High Court has directed the National Institute of Design (NID) to issue mark sheets and related academic documents to a student who completed his course after being granted admission against vacant reserved seats pursuant to a 2021 interim order.
Granting relief, Justice Nirzar S. Desai observed:
“It is an undisputed position that the present applicant has successfully passed out the course wherein he was admitted and the only formality which is left out is to provide mark-sheet and degree certificate… if the respondents are directed to provide the mark-sheet and other relevant documents that the applicant would require for his career advancement, the same is not going to create any prejudice in favour of anyone and hence, respondent No. 1 is directed to provide the mark-sheet and other relevant documents that the applicant may ask within a period of 15 days from today.”
Case Title: Bhang Anilbhai Govabhai vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
The Gujarat High Court directed the Children's Home in Mehsana to take the custody of a 16-year-old girl until she attains the age of majority, after she informed that she had voluntarily left her home alleging she was being tortured and coerced by her parents to marry a person against her choice.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of the girl who had claimed that his daughter was being illegally confined by the respondents. The court had earlier issued a notice to the State directing it to 'trace and secure the corpus' and present her before the court.