Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 To November 26, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 183-193]AM Mining India Private Limited Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 183Ketkiben Vasudev Vyas Versus State Of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 184Bharatkumar Ramabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 185Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 186Bhailal Babubhai Patel Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 187The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah) 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 188 Artiben Amishkumar Patel Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1) 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 189 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah) 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 190 Naman Gyanchand Pipara Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 191Bhagwati Polyfill Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 192Adf Foods Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 193Judgments/OrdersGujarat High Court: Protection Granted U/S 32A(2) & 33(5) Of IBC Overrides The Power Of Enforcement Directorate To Attach The Properties Under PMLACase Title: AM Mining India Private Limited Versus Union Of IndiaLL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 183The Gujarat High Court has held that the protection granted under Section32A(2) and Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) would override the power of Enforcement Directorate to attach the properties under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). A single bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati said that the Enforcement Directorate has proceeded to confirm the order of provisional attachment passed under Section 5(1) of PMLA without any application of mind. District Collector Honeytrap Case: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused RAC, Says S.354C IPC Not Attracted Against WomenCase Title: Ketkiben Vasudev Vyas Versus State Of GujaratLL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 184The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a female Resident Additional Collector who was implicated in a case involving the installation of spy cameras in the office chamber of the District Collector, Anand. The court ruled that Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voyeurism, is not applicable to women. According to the established facts of the case, the current petitioner, who was employed as the Resident Additional Collector at the Collector's office in District Anand, orchestrated the installation of spy cameras in the office chamber of the former District Collector. Subsequently, a woman was directed to frequent the District Collector's office with the purpose of cultivating a close relationship with the then District Collector, with the promise of financial compensation.Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To Accused Involved In Fake Passport Scam, Says He May Use International Contacts To FleeCase Title: Bharatkumar Ramabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 185In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court denied bail to an accused individual facing charges related to the creation of forged passports and fraudulent visa stickers for various foreign countries, emphasizing the possibility that if released on bail, the accused might leverage these connections to evade legal consequences.Justice Nirzar S Desai observed, “Considering the fact that the allegations against the present applicant are about creating forged passports and fabricated forged visa stickers of various foreign countries as well as it is coming out from the statement of various witnesses, prima facie, it seems that the present applicant is having contacts all over the world and therefore, looking to the nature of the allegations leveled against him about illegally sending the people to foreign countries and successfully allowing them to cross the border, there are all the chances that if the present applicant is enlarged on bail, he may utilize his international contacts all over the world for himself and may fly away.” No Prosecution Under Copyright Act For Sale Of Duplicate Spare Parts Of Computer Hardware: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 186The Gujarat High Court has ruled that duplicate spare parts of computer hardware are not literary, musical or artistic works and therefore an FIR cannot be lodged for violation of the Copyright Act, 1957 for their sale.Justice Sandeep Bhatt while quashing the FIR observed, “Apart from that, even if, the FIR is taken at its face value, it refers to items, which do not fall within the artistic work as defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It cannot be said that the spare-part is literal work or musical work. It is not disclosed that the spare part is an artistic work or any other such work that the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 would apply.” Income Tax Act | Valid Show-Cause Notice Crucial For Recovery ...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 To November 26, 2023

Bhavya Singh

Tags