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

[Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 165-170]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) 165The 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 ShahLL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 166The 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 EnmityCase title - Mohammad Shaukatali Nausarka vs. State Of Gujarat LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 167The 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 CourtCase Title: InstaKart Services v. Megastone Logiparks Pvt Ltd LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 168The 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 CourtCase Title: InstaKart Services v. Megastone Logiparks Pvt Ltd LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 168The 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 LandCase Title: Suyog Dye Chemie Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of IndiaLL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 169The 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...

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

Bhavya Singh

Tags