Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 - October 22, 2023

Judgements/Orders This Week

[Habeas Corpus] Court Cannot Force Medical Tests To Ascertain Mental Stability Of Corpus: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Padmaben Rajendrabhai Vyas Versus State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 165

The Gujarat High Court, in a significant dissenting opinion from a previous order issued by the Coordinate Bench, has ruled that individuals under a Habeas Corpus petition cannot be compelled to undergo medical tests to determine their mental stability. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. I. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi held, “In our considered opinion, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be forcefully subjected to medical test in order to ascertain their mental stability (ability) that too in habeas corpus petition on vague allegations that they are practicing black magic.”

Issue Of New Shares Is Not Transfer, Section 56(2)(vii)(c) Income Tax Act Not Invokable : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmadabad Versus Jigar Jashwantlal Shah

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 166

The Gujarat High Court has held that the shares that have been allotted to the assessee were not “received from any person,” which is the fundamental requirement for invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(c). The property must pre-exist for application of Section 56(2)(vii)(c), which is clear from the intention of the legislature”.

The division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that the words “allotment of shares” indicate the creation of shares by appropriation out of the unappropriated share capital to a particular person who has the right to choose allotment. In the case of ‘transfer of the shares, the shares pre-existed prior to the issuance of shares by the Company as there is a vital difference between “creation” and “transfer of shares”.

Gujarat HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against SDPI Secretary For Allegedly Posting WhatsApp Message To Trigger Religious Enmity

Case title - Mohammad Shaukatali Nausarka vs. State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 167

The Gujarat High Court last week refused to quash an FIR lodged against one Mohammad Nausarka, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), for allegedly posting a WhatsApp message on a group with the intention to trigger enmity between two different religious groups (Hindus and Muslims).

The bench of Justice JC Doshi whether the petitioner had the intention to cause disharmony or hatred between two groups can be established only during the trial and at the stage of plea seeking quashing of the FIR, it cannot be said that no offence is made out.

Place Of Arbitration Is The Venue And Not The Seat Of Arbitration When There Is A Contradictory Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: InstaKart Services v. Megastone Logiparks Pvt Ltd

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 168

The High Court of Gujarat has held that the place of arbitration is the venue and not the seat of arbitration when there is a contradictory exclusive jurisdiction clause. The bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the place where the arbitration is stated to be conducted would be the venue of arbitration when the agreement contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in a different place. It held that the presence of such an exclusive jurisdiction clause would be a contrary indicator which prevents the venue of being the seat of arbitration.

Co- Terminus Agreements Which Are Interdependent, Arbitration Clause In One Agreement Governs The Other : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: InstaKart Services v. Megastone Logiparks Pvt Ltd

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 168

The High Court of Gujarat has held that when two agreements are co-terminus and their performance is interdependent, the arbitration clause in one agreement can be invoked for the other as well. The bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that when two agreements are integrally related to each other and the performance of one is dependent on the other, then the absence of an arbitration clause in one of such agreements would not be material as the arbitration clause contained in the other would govern both the agreements.

Gujarat High Court Stays Proceedings Concerning GST Imposition On Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Of GIDC Land

Case Title: Suyog Dye Chemie Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 169

The Gujarat High Court stayed the proceedings in respect of the issue related to the imposition of GST on the transfer of leasehold rights to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) land and issued the notice to the department. The bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt passed this order while presiding over a petition in respect of several notices that had been issued by the state GST offices across Gujarat in the controversial matter of imposing GST on the transfer of leasehold rights of GIDC land by private parties.

Kheda Flogging Of Muslim Men| 'Custodians Of Law & Order Shouldn't Become Depredators Of Civil Liberties': Gujarat HC In Contempt Order

Case Title - Jahirmiya Rehamumiya Malek Vs. State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 170

Finding 4 Gujarat Police officers GUILTY of committing Contempt of Court (for violating Apex Court's DK Basu Guidelines) and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment of 14 days for publicly flogging Muslim men in the Kheda district last year, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday observed that the custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties.

In its 39-page order, a bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi stressed that the police officers should have the greatest regard for the personal liberty of citizens as they are the custodians of law and order and, hence, they should not flout the law by stooping to bizarre acts of lawlessness.

Other Developments

HCLSC Says Using Empanelled Advocates Names' On Causelist Poses Challenges In Tracking Cases, Gujarat High Court Assures Resolution

In a recent development, the Gujarat High Court addressed the concerns raised by empanelled advocates of the High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC) regarding their ability to track cases on a day-to-day basis. The matter was brought before the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Niral Mehta last week.

Kheda 'Flogging' Of Muslim Men: Victims Refused To Accept Monetary Compensation From Cops, Gujarat HC Informed

Five Muslim men, allegedly beaten by the Police in Gujarat’s Kheda district last year, have refused to accept monetary compensation from the four policemen facing contempt of court charges, the Gujarat High Court was informed on Monday. Appearing before a bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi, Senior Advocate Prakash Jani appearing for the accused policemen informed the Bench that the cops had met the victims and their advocate wherein they refused to accept any monetary compensation.

‘New Automated Listing Of Cases System Is In Interest Of Institution, Adapt To It’: Gujarat HC Chief Justice Advises Advocates

Endorsing HC’s new circular introducing the System Generated Next Listing Date (SGNLD) system for listing of cases, the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal today advised the lawyers to adapt to it and give themselves some time to adjust to it. The Chief Justice also stressed that the new system is in the interest of institutions and with time, things will settle down.

Importantly, she also found faults with the manual mentioning of the matter before the Court as she observed thus “30 minutes are taken up in the mentioning of the matters every day, why? These 30 minutes of precious judicial time are being spent on mentioning the matters. You mention a matter, and it is taken up. How? If the case is not on the board, you cannot make a mention in the court to get a case out of the registry. Every case has to be on the board to be taken up.”

'Willing To Provide Reservations In PhD Programmes': IIM Ahmedabad Informs Gujarat High Court After Initial Resistance

In a recent development, the Indian Institute of Management – Ahmedabad (IIM-A) has informed the Gujarat High Court of its willingness to provide reservations for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates in its PhD program, reversing its earlier stance.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by the alumni association of IIM – Global IIM Alumni Network in 2021, seeking a directive for IIM-A to incorporate reservations in its PhD programs.

Centre Appoints Judicial Officer VK Vyas As A Judge Of Gujarat High Court

The Central Government today notified the appointment of Gujarat Judicial Officer Vimal Kanaiyalal Vyas as a Judge of the Gujarat High Court. His name was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium earlier this month. On 7 February 2023, the Chief Justice of the High Court in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues made the above recommendation.

BREAKING | Kheda Flogging Of Muslim Men: Gujarat HC Finds 4 Cops Guilty Of Contempt, Orders 14-Day Jail Term; Order Stayed For 3 Months

The Gujarat High Court today found 4 Gujarat Police officers GUILTY of committing Contempt of Court (for violating Apex Court's DK Basu Guidelines) and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of 14 days for publicly flogging Muslim men in the Kheda district in October last year. However, the order of sentence has been stayed for three months following a request from the counsel of the accused to file an appeal against the order.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Arrest Warrant Against BJP MLA Hardik Patel In 2015 Sedition Case

The Gujarat High Court on Monday quashed and set aside an arrest warrant order issued by a Sessions Judge in Ahmedabad district against BJP MLA Hardik Patel concerning a 2015 FIR under sections 121A, 124A, 120B IPC in connection with a violent agitation for quota for the Patidar community across the state.

A bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt passed this order after the prosecution submitted that it had no objection if the NBW is quashed and also the fact that the sedition law is presently under challenge and consideration of the Supreme Court.