LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176Nominal IndexMohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s Marufa, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172Union of India v/s Meenadevi W/O Hariprasad Gupta & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 174Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Gohil v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 175Mohammed Asgarali Mohammad Vajirali v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 176Judgment/OrdersGujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate, Finds He Was Falsely Implicated For Representing One Of The AccusedCase title: Mohammad Bilal Gulam Rasul Kagazi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 211 of 2020Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR against an advocate, after noting that the CCTV footage reflected that he was not present at the place where he had allegedly threatened the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170]The advocate claimed that the complainant had falsely implicated him as he represented one of the accused in the case lodged by complainant.The complainant on the other alleged that the advocate had threatened him on the third floor of the Sessions Court. It was further alleged that the advocate had conspired with few persons and inflicted injuries with sword on the head of the complainant.Family Courts Are Duty Bound To Accept 'Mubarat' Divorce Of Muslim Couple: Gujarat High CourtCase title: Shahnawaz Sirajuddin Siddiqui v/s MarufaR/FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when marriage between a Muslim couple, governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, then Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 171]A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:"...when the marriage between two persons, who are governed by the Shariat Law, is dissolved by Mubara'at Agreement, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreement of the parties and to declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed between the parties. The High Court of Karnataka and other High Courts (Shabnam Parveen Ahmad vs. Mohammed Saliya Shaikh (Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4711 of 2022 dtd 26.03.2024), (Mohamed Saif Pasha vs. Madiha Arif (2021 SCC OnLine Madras 16570), on the identical issue, held and observed that, the Family Courts are duty bound to accept the agreements of the parties and declare the dissolution of the marriage as agreed".After 47 Years, Gujarat High Court Holds Baroda's Narsinhji Temple As Public Trust; Rejects Claim By Late Priest's Son Over Temple PropertiesCase title: Heirs of Mahant Dayaramdas- Bai Padma WD/o Dayaramdas (Deleted) & Ors. v/s Charity Commissioner & Ors. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 of 1979 and batchCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172The Gujarat High Court rejected the 47-year-old appeals filed by the legal heirs of the late priest of Narsinhji temple in Baroda who had claimed that the properties of the temple were private properties and belonged to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172]In doing so the court held that the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the appellant, the son of the late Mahant, was neither legally appointed priest of the temple nor was he declared as a Chela (disciple) of the late Mahant. The court further held that appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his case.Justice JC Doshi observed:"...the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the deity is a public deity is no more res-integra. The issue was squarely decided by the Division Bench of this Court...the status of late Mahant Dayaram, who at the relevant time was the appellant, was no more than a Pujari of the temple and the respondents therein were held to be the trustees of the public trust...The present appellant – Mr. Vijay is neither legally appointed Poojari of the temple nor he is declared as a Chela of the late Mahant Dayaram".Family Of Authorised Catering Hawker Who Fell From Train Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act: Gujarat High CourtCase title: Union of India v/s Meenadevi W/O Hariprasad Gupta & Ors. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 of 2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order holding that an authorized hawker employed for catering service by the Railways is entitled to accident compensation under the Railways Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 173]In doing so the court upheld an order passed by the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the wife of deceased man employed by catering company, who had died after he fell from a running train while...

LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

LiveLaw Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers