Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part I [Citations 1 - 210]
Sparsh Upadhyay
28 Dec 2022 9:04 AM GMT
![Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part I [Citations 1 - 210]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/28/750x450_451158-gujarat-high-court-yearly-digest-2022.webp "Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part I [Citations 1 - 210]")
NOMINAL INDEXM/S. Karnataka Traders V. State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 1Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel Vs Reshma Ruchin Patel;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 2The Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar Association, SuratV. Union Of India & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 3Sujal Jayantibhai Mayatra Versus NA; 2022 Livelaw(Guj) 4Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli Vs Shantaben MaganbhaiKoli; 2022 Livelaw (Guj)...
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S. Karnataka Traders V. State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 1
Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel Vs Reshma Ruchin Patel;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 2
The Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar Association, SuratV. Union Of India & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 3
Sujal Jayantibhai Mayatra Versus NA; 2022 Livelaw(Guj) 4
Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli Vs Shantaben MaganbhaiKoli; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 5
Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal Vs Alarakhbhai YusufbhaiJuneja; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 6
Ineos Styrolution India Limited Vs ShaileshbhaiManibhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 7
Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati V. State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 8
State Of Gujarat V. Pwd & Forest Employees Union;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 9
State Of Gujarat Vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 10
Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw(Guj) 11
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs BharatbhaiBhimjibhai Songara And Ors; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 12
Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena V. Government Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 13
Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 14
State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 15
Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 16
Mamta Bhavesh Dave Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3,Gandhinagar; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 17
Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh KumarBajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 18
Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus The Arbitrator,Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 19
Ranjitprasad Chandradevram Rajvanshi Properitor OfShree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 20
Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, Thro ManagingTrustee Versus Collector; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 21
Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana Vs State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 22
Nipun Praveen Singhvi V. Union Of India; 2022 Livelaw(Guj) 23
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs Shantuben SanjaybhaiMer; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 24
Essar Bulk Terminal Limited Vs Arcelor Mittal NipponSteel India; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 25
Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 26
Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai V. State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 27
Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim Vs ChhaganbhaiShambhubhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 28
Firoz Hajibhai Sodha Vs State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw(Guj) 29
C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh MohanlalPanchal Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 30
Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 31
Sandipkumar Manubhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 32
Minakshiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Versus State OfGujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 33
Sapna Gehlot W/O Devendra Singh Gehlot Thru PoaKuldeep Singh Chauhan Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 34
Arvind Limited Through Autho. Rep. Hardik MotiwalaVersus Suo Motu; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 35
Hirabhai Lakhabhai Bharwad @ Virabhai LakhabhaiBharwad Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 36
Hiteshkumar Nileshbhai Prajapati Versus State OfGujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 37
Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat AndOrs; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 38
Sonalben Bhanabhai Tadvi-Minor Through Uncle & 2Other(S) Versus Madhuben Bhagubhai Tadvi & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj)39
H.K.Thakur Versus Nazir Noormohmed Kara & 2Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 40
M/S. Raghunandan Enterprise Versus AssistantCommissioner Of Income Tax; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 41
Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 42
Rajubhai Kanubhai Bharwad Versus South Indian Bank;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 43
Bilkisbanu (Bilkisbano) Hanifkhan @ Kalo MunnoAmirkhan Jatmalek Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 44
Nandlal Namdev Otwani Versus Vijay Jayprakash Ahuja;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 45
Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 46
Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara Versus State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 47
Dharmendra Ravipratap Rajak Versus State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 48
Hirenbhai Hiteshbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat;2022 Livelaw (Guj) 49
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs BodarAugustin Bhurjibhai; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 50
J. V. State Of Gujarat (Name Concealed Intentionally);2022 Livelaw (Guj) 51
Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor Versus State Of Gujarat& 3 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 52
Parulben Natwarlal Patel Versus State Of Gujarat; 2022Livelaw (Guj) 53
New India Assurance Co Ltd Versus MukeshbhaiBhimsingbhai Rajput & 4 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 54
Solanki Vipulkumar Virabhai Versus Institute OfBanking Personnel Section (IBPS); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 55
Dinesh Sharan Thakur Versus Dr. M K Shah MedicalCollege And Research Centre; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 56
Gujarat Rajya Hotel Federation & 9 Other(S) VersusState Of Gujarat & 1 Other(s); 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 57
Kiritkumar Ravjibhai Sharma Versus Principal/TrusteeSaraswati Kadavni Mandal; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 58
Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited V. Rmc Redimix(India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.; 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 59
Ayeshaben wd/o. Ahmed Adam Alinatha & 8 other(s)versus Huriben Ismail Ali Since Deceased through legal heirs 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)60
Keshavbhai Mohanbhai Bhut vs Ranabhai Kalabhai Senta2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Saint-Gobain India Private Limited Versus Union OfIndia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 63
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 64
M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 65
YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Versus STATE OFGUJARAT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 67
Sukeshi Vijaybhai Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 68
Chaudhary Pravinbhai Revabhai Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 70
Raghuversinh Chandrasinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Archana Mukesh Raval v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 72
Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 73
State Of Gujarat vs Natvarsinh Prabhatsinih Rathod2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v. State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 76
Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v. Deputy ExecutiveEngineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thruThe Addl. Chief Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus StateOf Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. AshabenVikrambhai Chauhan 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
Janakbhai @ Alpeshbhai Mafatbhai Rabari & 1Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Kumarkhaniya (Devipujak) & 3Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel (Deleted) v. State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
Dilip Bhavanishankar Yadav v. State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 85
Mayank Jayantbhai Shah S/O Jayant Manharlal ShahVersus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
A B C (Victim) vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj)87
Shantaben Ambalal Patel & 1 Other(S) VersusSunitaben Vijaykumar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
Chauhan Mahmadrafik Abdul Latif Versus Oil And NaturalGas Corporation Limited Through Authorized Person 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
M/s New Nalbandh Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 90
Manoj @ Munnabhai Ashwinbhai Somabhai Parmar VersusDirector General Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
Ramsingbhai Saburbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 92
Union Of India Thro Amitkumar, Intelligence Officer OrHis Successor In Office Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 95
Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vs Rameshbhai Hirabhai Patel2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
-Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v. Directorate General OfPolice 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Chandra Darshan Developers Through Partner VersusHiralal Gopalbhai 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 99
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVAL DEEPAKKKUMARSHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial TaxOfficer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. ExecutiveEngineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 102
Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd.Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 103
Symphony Limited Vs ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
Harkishanbhai Dahyabhai Lad vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 106
Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial TaxOfficer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs The State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
Rajendra Amulakh Khimani Versus The University GrantsCommission 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
Somiben Arvindbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 110
M/S Bharmal Indane Service versus Indian OilCorporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
Kameshbhai Niranjanbhai Sopariwala Versus State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
State Of Gujarat Versus Paramjit @ Kali HimmatsinghChima 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 115
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd Versus Gujarat IndustrialDevelopment Corporation & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
Ishwarlal Kasturlal Pandya vs Ibrahimbhai FarukdinVohra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 118
M/S M N Trapasia versus Divisional Railway Manager(WA) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
Botad Taluka Sahkari Kharid ... vs BhagirathbhaiKanubhai Khachar 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
Aryan Siris Garange (Arayan Shirish Garange) VersusState Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
Alok Kistuchand Agarwal vs Sub Registrar 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 122
Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 123
M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 124
Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner OfCGST 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 126
Richa W/O Kushal Mistry And D/O Hemantkumar AdhvaryuVersus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
Hiren Dahyabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 128
Aveshbhai @ Avalo Ganibhai Ghoniya Through BrotherAzimbhai Ganibhai Ghoni V/S The District Magistrate And Collector & 2Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 130
Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit AndVegetable Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 133
Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional ProvidentFund Commissioner II 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, HarijanVinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 135
Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun SevaPasandgi Mandal Through Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 137
Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt Ltd versus VenusInfrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 139
Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed v. State OfGujarat 1 other 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay Versus State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi Versus Hiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi& 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 144
Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vs Commissioner OfPolice 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
State Of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Titabhai Baraiya 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief CommissionerOf Income Tax (TDS) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
Shiv Garment Through Sole Prop. Rameshchandra GigajiMaurya v. Suryaben Kantilal Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai Kuniya Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 152
Vijay Arvind Jariwala v. Umang Jatin Gandhi 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 153
Bajaj Finance Ltd. Through Authorised Officer, AniketPareshbhai Desai versus Ld. District Collector, Navsari & 1 other(s)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Vijay Arvind Jariwala Versus Umang Jatin GandhiCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
Godrej Agrovet Limited & 1 Other(S) Versus StateOf Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 158
Principal Commissioner Versus Reliance Industries 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 159
Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
Harshad D Santoki S/O Devjibhai Versus State OfGujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
Shree Vikas Co.Op. Bank ltd, (liq.) Through SunilLaxmanrao Powle v. State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
Nathiben Lalitbhai Vegada Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 163
Panchal Zalakben Hardikbhai D/O Sanjaybhai BhagubhaiPanchal Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Leepee Enterprise versus Mehul Industries 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 165
Vijaybhai Punabhai Chavda Versus State Of Gujarat& 13 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
Chief Project Manager Versus Firoz Saheb DargahThrough Trustee Shaikh Onali Ismailji Visawaarvala 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
Essar Steel Limited & 1 other(s) v State OfGujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 168
Jitendrabhai Arjanbhai Roy Versus The Director OfAgricultural Marketing And Rural Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 169
Axis Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 170
Virani Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 171
M/S S K Industries Through Sajid Ibrahim Memon VersusState Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 172
Vaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of GujaratVaishaliNishit Patel vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
State Of Gujarat vs Ajaybhai Champaklal Champaneri2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 174
The Ol Of M/S Neelnandan Polymers Limited (In Liqn)V/S Suresh Gopichand Keswani 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 175
Vivekkumar Kamalniranjan Kushwaha V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
Jaydev Mulubhai Jaju vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 177
Hardasbhai Raymalbhai Gohil vs Sanjaybhai ArvindbhaiJabuani 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 178
Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 179
Madrasa-E-Anware Rabbani Waqf Committee V/S SuratMunicipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 180
Rajendrakumar Manilal Jaiswal V/S State Of Gujarat& 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 181
National Insurance Co Ltd V/S Rajeen Rafiqahmed Vohra& 4 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 182
Amitkumar Babubhai Katara V/S The State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 183
Sumesh Engineers Private Limited V/S Madhya GujaratVij Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 184
Yamuna cables accessories pvt. Ltd. V/s desaienterprise 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 185
State Of Gujarat V Saurashtra Majur Mahajan Sangh 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 186
Subhashchandra Sanatan Mallik Through BabitaSubhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 188
Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Symphony Limited Versus Raj Cooling System PrivateLimited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/S Agriculture ProduceMarket Committee 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai Vaghela Through TejalShankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag PrabhashankarTrivedi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat& 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 196
Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar JillaSahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/SVadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw(Guj) 200
Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 201
Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority ofIndia 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban developmentauthority 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India& 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India& 1 another 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 208
Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022LiveLaw (Guj) 209
Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani Versus State Of Gujarat2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
Case Title - M/S. KARNATAKA TRADERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
The Gujarat High Court has held that mereundervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't besufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods andServices Tax Act, 2017.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M.Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedingsincluding the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against thePetitioner, Karnataka Traders, who is a seller of the goods(Arecanut) and a registered dealer under the GST.
Case Title - Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel vs Reshma RuchinPatel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 2
The Gujarat High Court has observed thatthe right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a sharedhousehold cannot be defeated by the simple expedient ofsecuring an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under theSenior Citizens Act 2007.
The Bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi referredto the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of SVanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, wherein it washeld that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of ashared household cannot be defeated by the simpleexpedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedureunder the Senior Citizens Act.
Case Title - THE SOUTHERN GUJARAT INCOME TAX BARASSOCIATION, SURAT v. UNION OF INDIA & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 3
The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT) todayassured the Gujarat High Court that it shall attend to thegrievances of the assessee (intending to file ITR and Tax Audit Reports)regarding the technical glitches existing on the Income Tax Portal.
The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and JusticeNisha M. Thakore was also told about the grievance mechanism that hasbeen employed by the Board to deal with the existing and potential issues withregard to the technical glitches of the Income Tax Portal.
Case Title - SUJAL JAYANTIBHAI MAYATRA Versus NA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld anorder of the family court refusing to waive off the statutory6 months cooling period in a plea by a couple seeking a mutual divorce wholived with each other for a period of 12 days only.
The Bench of Justice A. C. Joshi observedthat the family court rightly passed the order refusing to waive off thecooling period therefore, there was no requirement to interfere in the impugnedorder of the Court.
Case Title: Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli vs ShantabenMaganbhai Koli
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 5
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi at theGujarat High Court has held that the maximum limit of 90 days for filing thewritten statement as under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory innature. However, the Courts must exercise this discretion sparingly and not inthe routine course.
DifferenceBetween Article 226 & Article 227 Of Constitution: Gujarat High CourtExplains
Case Title: Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal vs AlarakhbhaiYusufbhai Juneja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 6
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the High Courtmust exercise its Supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitutionsparingly.
Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi also discussed thedifference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 indetail. Justice Joshi termed the exercise of power under Article 227 as 'discretionary'while the jurisdiction under Article 226 as 'a matter of right.'
Case Title: Ineos Styrolution India Limited vsShaileshbhai Manibhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 7
Upholding the decision of the Single Judge Bench, the Benchcomprising Justice Vora and Justice Mayee has affirmed that under Section 17(B)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'), the workman is entitled topayment of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedingsin the High Court and not from the date of filing of affidavit as contended bythe Appellant-Company.
Case Title - HAMIM HABIBBHAI KHAMBHATI v. STATE OFGUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 8
The Gujarat High Court recently grantedrelief to an interfaith married couple, and sternly asked the parents of thegirl, who are opposed to the inter faith marriage and their relationship, notto misbehave.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice MaunaM. Bhatt was hearing the Habeas Corpus plea by one HamimHabibbhai Khambhati who filed a writ of habeascorpus for production of his wife with whom he got married under the SpecialMarriage Act.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. PWD & ForestEmployees Union
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 9
The Gujarat High Court recently held that the benefitsflowing from a Resolution applicable to the State Government employees cannotbe automatically claimed by the employees of the autonomous body.
The bench comprising Justice A. P. Thaker and JusticeN.V. Anjaria discarded the plea of discrimination asserted by theemployees of Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation insofar as they weredenied the benefit of a Resolution of the Public Works Department of theGovernment of Gujarat, whereby scheme was launched for the daily wagers workingin the departments of the Government and under which the daily wagers came tobe granted the benefits depending upon the completion of their service.
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
While explaining that to prove an offence under Section 306,the Prosecution must satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 first, JusticeSandeep N Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with theimpugned judgement and quash the order of acquittal. While doing so, the Benchdelved into the terms 'abetment' and 'instigation' under Sections 306 and 107of the IPC, at length.
Case Title - Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 11
While hearing a case challenging the Central Government'smove to withdraw anti-dumping duty on the imports of "PVC Flex Films"from China, the Gujarat High Court last week stayed thenotification of the Central Government for a period of six weeks.
This order has been made by the bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore in view of the pendency of anappeal before the Special Bench of the Tribunal under Customs Tariff Act, 1975challenging the withdrawal of the said anti-dumping duty.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd vsBharatbhai Bhimjibhai Songara and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 12
An insurance company cannot be held liable for indemnity ifthe driver of the offending vehicle does not have a valid license on the dateof the accident, Gujarat High Court has held.
In an appeal filed against an order of Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal which had held that the insurance company would be liable to indemnifyan award for accidental damage even if the license of the person driving theoffending vehicle had expired, Justice RM Chayya, overturned the award of theTribunal. It stated that in absence of any valid license, the insurance companymust be exonerated from the liability of payment of indemnity.
Case Title: Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena v. Government OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 13
The Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained delay orlaches in filing the writ petition is a sufficient cause for a Court to refrainfrom exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of theConstitution.
In an appeal challenging the settlement arrived at inconciliation proceedings a decade ago, a bench comprising Chief Justice AravindKumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri observed that the principle of 'delaydefeats equity' shall be applicable in the present scenario considering thepetitioners have woken up from a deep slumber after several years withoutproviding any rationale for such delay.
EveryOffence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 14
The Gujarat High Court has held that when parties havesettled the dispute amicably, the compounding of the offence is permitted withregard to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Justice Vipul Pancholi took note of Section 147of the Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC,every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
RobberyBy Five Persons Or More An Essential Element Of Dacoity: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor GopaljiChhanaji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 15
While affirming that the commission of robbery by five ormore persons is an essential ingredient of dacoity under Section 391 of IPC,the Gujarat High Court refused to set aside the order of the Sessions Courtacquitting the accused persons.
A Bench bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeSandeep N Bhatt observed,
"According to section 391 of IPC, dacoity is robberycommitted by five or more persons. Essential element of offence of dacoityunder section 395 is that five or more persons must have participated in theoffence of dacoity. No such evidence is coming on record so as to infer thatrespondent nos.3 to 6 actually participated in committing offence of dacoity."
SuccessiveFIRs: Gujarat High Court Explains 'Test of Sameness' & 'Test ofConsequence'
Case Title: Kanaiyalal Sundarji Detroja vs State ofGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 16
The Gujarat High Court recently delved into the 'Test ofSameness' and the 'Test of Consequence' that are relevant while determining thelegality of a 'second FIR'.
Second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incidentor crime is not permissible in law. However, to determine whether the secondimpugned FIR is based on the same offence and arises out of a differenttransaction, the above two tests may be applied.
Case Title: MAMTA BHAVESH DAVE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3, GANDHINAGAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 17
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside the incomere-assessment notice issued by the Income Tax Department to the partner of afirm, holding that there is no reason for taxing the remuneration from thecapital account of the partnership firm since the partner had agreed not toderive any income thereof.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and JusticeNisha M Thakore noted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claimof the deduction for the remuneration/interest on the partners capital accounthowever, the same was added back on the ground that it was not claimed as adeduction in the profit and loss account.
Case Title: Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri DineshKumar Bajranglal Somani Versus Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 18
Although S.34 of the Evidence Act does not require aspecific form of corroborative evidence, under it, a ledger by itself does nothave evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent entries like roznama(Daily cash entries) or any witness or even orally by the power of attorney,depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, Gujarat High Court hasheld.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice NiralR Mehta while admitting the appeal of the Plaintiff-Appellant ('Plaintiff') hasobserved that the ledger does not have any evidentiary value on its own underS.34 of Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by daily cash bookentries/roznama. However, in the present case, since the suit proceeded ex-parte andthe Plaintiff had produced other evidence duly stamped and signed which wentunopposed by the Respondent and that Plaintiff's power of attorney had providedoral evidence substantiating the ledger, the Plaintiff was entitled to recovermoney from the Respondent.
Case Title: Sandipbhai Ashokbhai Parmar Versus TheArbitrator, Kumari Neetaben Vitthabhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 19
If an Act prescribes a mechanism to address certaingrievances and the petitioner is ignorant of such statutory mechanism orchooses not to avail them and straightaway invokes High Court's extraordinaryjurisdiction under A.226 of the Constitution, then exercising such jurisdictionfor the same is not in the fitness of things, Gujarat high Court has held.
In a writ petition seeking stay of the arbitrationproceedings on account of a past working relationship between the Arbitratorand the Respondent, Justice Ashutosh J Shastri, while emphasisingthe remedies available to the Petitioner under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act 1996 for challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator,dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Ranjitprasad Chandradevram RajvanshiProperitor Of Shree Logistics Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 20
Various applications seeking registrations of FIR are beingfiled before the High Court directly without approaching the concernedMagistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, theGujarat High Court has observed.
According to Justice Vipul Pancholi, this is incontravention of the Supreme Court's observations on the powers of theMagistrate under Section 156(3). The Bench, therefore, rejected the Petitionfiled under Article 226 seeking registration of FIR basis the written complaintfiled by him with the Respondent-Police Authority.
LessGraves Cannot Be A Ground To Vest Kabrastan Land In Govt: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trust, ThroManaging Trustee Versus Collector
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 21
"One cannot expect that graveyard should be fullalways and if there are less graves, it cannot be said to be a ground to vestthe land in Government," the Gujarat High Court has held.
Justice Dr. AP Thaker made this observationwhile considering a petition filed by the Islahul Sunni Muslim Khidmat Trustfor quashing the order passed by the Collector in 2006, vesting the kabrastan landin the Government.
UnlessReasoning Of Trial Court Is Perverse, Judgment Of Acquittal Cannot Be Upset:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 22
While dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the AppellateCourt cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal intoconviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary tothe material on record, the Gujarat High Court has held.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeSandeep N Bhatt added, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found tobe perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. Making this observation, itdismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order of Sessions Court, acquittingthe accused from charge of Murder.
Case Title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 23
The Gujarat High Court today disposed ofa Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a directionfor filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,Ahmedabad in view of Centre's notification giving additional charge of DRT-I,Ahmedabad to the presiding officer of DRT-II till March 31,2022, or till the permanent appointment of a member is made.
At the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, the benchof Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R. Mehta alsoasked the ASG Devyang Vyas to make efforts for the appointment of a permanentmember as soon as possible so that the presiding officer of DRT II isn'tburdened with work.
Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs ShantubenSanjaybhai Mer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 24
The consideration which cannot be ignored is that ifsufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Courtto condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberatelyconferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in thatbehalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice", theGujarat High Court observed recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi madethis observation while hearing a Petition under Article 227, against an orderof the District Judge for condonation of delay of 132 days caused in preferringthe civil appeal against the judgement passed by the Judge.
Case Title: Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelor MittalNippon Steel India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 25
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ('Act') envisages 'interimmeasures' and the Courts must not adjudicate a substantive issue at this stage,the Gujarat High Court has observed today. Further, once jurisdiction underSection 9 is invoked and the remedy has been exhausted, similar interimmeasures cannot be claimed by a party before the arbitral tribunal, as this maygive rise to two orders simultaneously- one by the court and another by thearbitral tribunal.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice NiralMehta was hearing First Appeals (clubbed due to inter-related issues)challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court at Surat under Section 9of the Act.
Encroachment Over Public Land Can't Be Retained Citing RightTo Shelter: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 26
While dismissing a PIL seeking to restrain the Railwayauthority from evicting slum dwellers until rehabilitation, the Gujarat HighCourt has held that the right to shelter is not a ground to continueencroachment on a public land. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumarand Justice Ashutosh Shastri recalled the observations made by a previous Benchin this regard:
"The debate as regards the rights of encroachersover public land vis a vis the right to shelter should come to an end. Theright to shelter and encroachment are two different facet. An encroacher maysave himself from being forcibly evicted only if during his period of stay overthe encroached public land any enforceable legal right has crystallized in hisfavour. Otherwise, merely by asserting the Right to Shelter , an encroacher,over public land, cannot say that he cannot be evicted."
Case Title: Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai v. State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 27
While inquiring into a Habeas Corpus petition filed by thePetitioner seeking the release of her son from Special Operational Group, theGujarat High Court has remarked,
"the least that is expected of the person who hasbeen given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of aperson on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail anopportunity of hearing to the person concerned."
This observation was made in reference to the wide powersthat the Central Government is vested with to inquire into the nationality of aperson and deport the person if not found to be an Indian national.
Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage IsNot Proper: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs ChhaganbhaiShambhubhai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28
The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approachesthe Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper.Justice AP Thaker remarked,
"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, theequitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one tobe granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Case Title: Firoz Hajibhai Sodha vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 29
The statement by a co-accused under Section 25 of the IndianEvidence Act can be treated as a clue or piece of information for initiatingand conducting an investigation to find out whether there is any independentand satisfactory material for further investigation, the Gujarat Court hasclarified. The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi made this observationwhile hearing an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking the quashing ofthe FIR for charges under sections 65(e), 116B, 81, and 98(2) of the GujaratProhibition Act and under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Case Title: C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through DeineshMohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 30
"It is a settled proposition of law that proceedingsunder Section 138 of the NI Act would lie only in respect of any 'enforceabledebt'", the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprisingJustice Gita Gopi made this observation in connection with an application filedunder Section 482 of CrPC, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the CJMRajkot for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Gujarat High Court Grants Joint Custody Of Differently AbledCorpus To His Father & Major Daughter
Case Title: Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 31
In a peculiar case, where the corpus lost his memory up to95% and his wife died by committing suicide, the Gujarat High Court haspermitted the corpus' major daughter and his father to share joint custody ofthe corpus.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice MaunaBhatt further directed that once the second daughter of the corpus becomes amajor, she will also have joint custody of the corpus and if, by then thecorpus has completely cured and medically released, they can continue to lookafter him.
Depletion Of Sex Ratio Resulting Into More And More'Exchange Marriages': Gujarat High Court
Case Title - SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 32
The Gujarat High Court has observed that the depletion ofthe sex ratio in the State of Gujarat is resulting in more and more cases ofexchange marriages. It may be noted that it is a form of marriage involving anarranged and reciprocal exchange of spouses between two groups. The Bench ofJustice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt observed thus while hearing acase while uniting a couple after they were separated by the father of thewoman as he wanted to marry her 'in exchange'.
Case Title: MINAKSHIBEN LAXMANBHAI PARALIYA Versus STATEOF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 33
An order of termination referring to the FIR and case filedagainst the employee without conducting full departmental inquiry is bound tobe stigmatic, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprisingJustice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a petition under Article 226challenging the communication which terminated the services of the Petitioner.Accordingly, the Bench quashed and set aside the aforesaid communication.
Case Title: SAPNA GEHLOT W/O DEVENDRA SINGH GEHLOT THRUPOA KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 34
Emphasising the significance of a mother's guardianship inthe upbringing of her children, the Gujarat High Court has directed that theRespondent-Husband to hand over the custody of the three young children to thePetitioner-Mother situated in New Zealand. Coming down heavily on theRespondent-Husband, the Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeNirzar S Desai remarked tersely:
"Here is the husband who had with predesigned tacthad taken the children away from natural guardian mother and the mother'spassport also was taken away by him ensuring that she could not travel andcould not follow him up. He also simultaneously initiated the legal proceedingsfor custody and divorce knowing fully well that the wife's passport was withhim and she was unable to come to India."
Case Title: ARVIND LIMITED THROUGH AUTHO. REP. HARDIKMOTIWALA Versus SUO MOTU
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 35
Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollutionfrom textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with highchemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluentmanagement in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the SabarmatiRiver. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavatihas made this observation while declining reliefs to the textile industrieswhich prayed the Court to permit the industries to reconnect the sewer lines toenable them to discharge industrial effluent into the sewer lines.
No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To LandSold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: HIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD @ VIRABHAILAKHABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 36
"When the land was sold in a public auction and whenthere is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not bea feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land inquestion", the Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observationin a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals)Revenue Department ('SSRD') vesting the Petitioner's land with the Government.
Gujarat High Court Grants Protection To Young Couple WishingTo Marry
Case Title: HITESHKUMAR NILESHBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATEOF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 37
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice MaunaBhatt while granting protection to a young couple wishing to marry each other,admitted the writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Jayaben Shrimali fromthe care of the District Legal Service Authority, Banaskantha.
The Court had, on an earlier occasion, granted protection tothe corpus who was interested in marrying the Petitioner Hiteshkumar Prajapatibut was pressurised to state that he was below the age of 21 years. She wasaccordingly granted accommodation at a Women Protection Home until thePetitioner turned 21 year of age on 07.02.2022. She was granted security andbasic amenities by the DLSA Full Time Secretary and the Administrator.
Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: DINESHBHAI DHUDABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OFGUJARAT and ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 38
Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnavwhile allowing the Petition challenging the order terminating the Petitioner'sservices has observed as follows;
"The employer is not allowed to hire and fire evenif the employee, maybe ad hoc or probationer, and the services cannot be givena go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma,without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of naturaljustice."
Case Title: SONALBEN BHANABHAI TADVI-MINOR THROUGH UNCLE& 2 other(s) Versus MADHUBEN BHAGUBHAI TADVI & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 39
Affirming that it is not necessary under Section 163A of theMotor Vehicles Act to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashlyand negligently which resulted in the death of the victim, the Gujarat HighCourt has imposed liability on the insurance company to pay compensation to thefamily of the deceased.
The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep N Bhatt ordered this inconnection with the First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act by theAppellants who were dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal.
Case Title: H.K.THAKUR Versus NAZIR NOORMOHMED KARA &2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 40
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that presumption ofinnocence in favour of an accused is strengthened upon acquittal by the trialCourt. The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra M Sareen observed,
"in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice in favourof the Accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him underthe Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall bepresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law.Secondly, the Accused having secured his Acquittal, the presumption of hisinnocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."
Case Title: M/S. RAGHUNANDAN ENTERPRISE Versus ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 41
There is a fine distinction between a case where a partnerof a firm assigns his/her share in favour of a third person and a case where apartner constitutes a sub-partnership with his/her share in the mainpartnership, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwalaand Justice Nisha Thakore while hearing a Writ Petition filed by a PartnershipFirm, seeking to quash an order of the Income tax Department which attached theland of the firm as the property of an Assessee.
Case Title: BHAVESH KHIMABHAI PANDIT Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 42
Affirming that the nature of duties of an ElectricalAssistant are "onerous", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnavat the Gujarat High Court has declined to allow the Petition of a colour-blindcandidate seeking the quashment of "unfit certificate" for the saidpost.
The Petitioner had applied for the post of an ElectricalAssistant and was accordingly, sent for medical examination wherein he wasdeclared unfit basis colour vision blindness. Thereafter, the impugned certificatewas issued to him by the Civil Hospital Ahmedabad stating that he was unfit forthe position.
The Court noted that this issue was squarely covered by theHigh Court in SCA No. 6217 of 2021 with 8611 of 2020. In theaforesaid decision, the Petitioner had been appointed as an Apprentice Linemanwith the Electricity Company without any mention of his colour blindness. Hehad contended that if he was found fit for carrying out his duties as lineman,then there should not have been a disqualification for being appointed as anElectrical Assistant. The Ophthalmology Institute, in turn, specifically termedhim "unfit" for the aforesaid post.
Case Title: RAJUBHAI KANUBHAI BHARWAD Versus SOUTH INDIANBANK
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 43
Considering that the Appellants were ready and willing todeposit INR 20 lacs and the fact that the property which was likely to beauctioned was residential premises wherein two families were residing, theGujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Bank to not dispossess thefamily from the property until 11th March 2022. The Bench comprising Justice AJDesai was hearing an appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent which soughtrelief from dispossession of property which was going to be auctioned.
Case Title: BILKISBANU (BILKISBANO) HANIFKHAN @ KALOMUNNO AMIRKHAN JATMALEK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 44
The Gujarat High Court recently denied bail to an accusedunder the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Act, 2015, stating thataccused was prima facie a part of an 'organised crime syndicate' involved inhighway thefts.
'Organized Crime Syndicate', defined under Section 2(1)(f)of the Act, means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly orcollectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organisedcrime.
Financial Crisis Can Be One Of The Grounds For CondonationOf Delay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: NANDLAL NAMDEV OTWANI Versus VIJAY JAYPRAKASHAHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 45
"Now as the legal settled proposition which has beenset-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of theparties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be consideredto be one of the grounds for condonation of delay," the Gujarat High Courthas held. The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation withregard to a Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused inpreferring an appeal from an order wherein the Applicant was restrained fromtransferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.Nowas the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above,considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even ofthe Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the groundsfor condonation of delay.
Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the powerprescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic creditledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in suchledger, alleged to be ineligible.
"Condition precedent for exercise of power underRule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electroniccredit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance isavailable, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notallow the debit of amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no powerof negative block for credit to be availed in future," observed Justice JBPardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore.
Case Title: RAJESHBHAI JESINGBHAI DAYARA Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
The Gujarat High Court has held that to prosecute a personunder the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, it must be established that the accused had knowledge of the victim'scaste.
"If we refer Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, it must bewithin knowledge of the accused person that such person is a member of ScheduleCaste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. It is nowherealleged by the complainant that the accused persons were having knowledge thatthe complainant was the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or suchproperty belongs to such member," Justice BN Karia opined.
Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48
The Gujarat High Court has refused to stall theredevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting thatpublic interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties.Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati observed, "Some inconvenience toindividual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well aspublic benefit has to be taken into consideration."
Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant AnticipatoryBail: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
"Merely granting protection for long time would notbe a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when theapplicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the GujaratHigh Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an applicationunder Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR foroffences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2)of IPC.
Case Title: Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vsBodar Augustin Bhurjibhai
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that while exercising itspowers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the LabourCourts/ Tribunals must factor in the nature of employment, whether public orprivate.
Section 11A empowers Labour Courts/ Tribunals to lessen thepunishment of 'discharge or dismissal from service' for employee's misconductand direct reinstatement on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.
Case title - J. v. State Of Gujarat (name concealedintentionally)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
The Gujarat High Court recently directed the DirectorGeneral of Police, Gujarat State to ensure that all the police stations in thestate have a panel of lawyers to aid the victims of the sexual assault crimesin accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 1995decision.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Aniruddha P.Mayee issued this order after noting that the Supreme Court had issued, interalia, the following 4 directions in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs.Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 14], and which are not being followed in the stateof Gujarat
Case Title: MAHESHBHAI BHURJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OFGUJARAT & 3 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 52
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that indispensing with departmental inquiry, the authority must arrive at asatisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure andit must record reason to show that such satisfaction is arrived at on objectivefacts and not on whims and caprice.
Further, Justice Sangeeta Vishen observed that partiesconcerned will be put in an embarrassing position cannot be a ground todispense with the inquiry.
Case Title: PARULBEN NATWARLAL PATEL Versus STATE OFGUJARAT
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 53
"When a particular schedule is mentioned in anadvertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be anyrelaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power isreserved," the Gujarat High Court held recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made thisobservation in a Special Civil Application filed by one Parulben Patel, seekingappointment to the post of Live-Stock Inspector (Class III), and that therequirement for having 10th class certificate in English be relaxed.
Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MUKESHBHAIBHIMSINGBHAI RAJPUT & 4 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 54
The Gujarat High Court has recently held it to be awell-settled principle of law that "merely in absence of endorsement todrive the transport vehicle in the license does not amount to lead to theinterpretation that the driver is not holding valid and effective drivinglicense."
Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed this in connection with aFirst Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act ('MV Act') wherein theAppellant-Insurance Company was aggrieved with the order passed by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation worth INR1,55,000 with 9% interest pa to the claimants (driver) and owner jointly andseverally.
Case Title: SOLANKI VIPULKUMAR VIRABHAI Versus INSTITUTEOF BANKING PERSONNEL SECTION (IBPS)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 55
"The provisions of the 2016 (Rights of Person withDisability) Act do not envisage a situation to give appointment to a person inabsence of any vacancy in the category," the Gujarat High Court hasheld.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed so while hearing a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the Petitioner, avisually impaired candidate, was aggrieved by non-appointment to the SaurashtraGramin Bank, for the reason that no vacancy for visually impaired (VI) categorywas requisitioned.
Case Title: DINESH SHARAN THAKUR Versus DR. M K SHAHMEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 56
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that merelyappointing more experienced or senior candidates to an administrative postcannot be said to be stigmatic to the predecessor.
In saying so, the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnavhas dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner, former HOD (Anesthesia) ata medical college, challenging his removal and appointment of rather seniorcandidate.
Case Title: GUJARAT RAJYA HOTEL FEDERATION & 9other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
"It is cardinal rule of interpretation, that if astatute explicitly mentions a particular process or method, the same has to bestringently and mandatorily followed, and the Courts cannot interpret the samein any other manner when the words of the statue are precise andunambiguous", the Gujarat High Court has observed.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has made thisobservation in a writ petition seeking to quash the notifications which reducedthe cash value of the total wage of hotel workers from 33.3% to 19% vide a15.12.2001 notification.
Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In AppointmentAt Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA VersusPRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purportedmistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher,cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited alapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, toset aside the State's order terminating his services.
Justice Biren Vaishnav held,
"taking a stand four and half years after hisappointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it isa mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four andhalf years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."
Case Title: Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. RMCRedimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 59
"…it is expressly provided that defendant shall beserved with the plaint and the annexures of the plaint, therefore it necessaryimplies that all the documents which are part of the plaint as annexures arerequired to be supplied to the defendant while serving the summons", theGujarat High Court has affirmed yesterday.
The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice SamirJ. Dave upheld this in connection with a Special Civil Application challengingthe rejection of the Applicant's leave to defend on grounds of delay.
Case Title: AYESHABEN WD/O. AHMED ADAM ALINATHA& 8 other(s) Versus HURIBEN ISMAIL ALI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 60
"Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, andwithout the same it becomes lifeless," the Gujarat High Courtremarked.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi was hearing a writpetition challenging the judgement of the First Appellate Court which condoneddelay of 2 years and 5 months in the filing of execution petition against thejudgement of the Civil Judge, without assigning proper reasons.
Case Title: Keshavbhai Mohanbhai Bhut vsRanabhai Kalabhai Senta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 61
Affirming the Trial Court's decision of dismissing a privatecomplaint on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature, the High Courtobserved that the Trial Court had duly followed the procedure under Section 203of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing apetition under Art 227 wherein the Petitioner had challenged the order of theAdditional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision application of the Petitioneragainst the order of Magistrate, dismissing his private complaint under Section203 CrPC.
Case Title: SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDVersus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 62
The Gujarat High Court affirmed a coordinate bench judgmentwhich held that only the persons on whom lay the ultimate burden to pay the taxwould be entitled to get a refund of the same.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and JusticeNisha Thakore have upheld this in a writ application seeking refundfrom State under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The refund sought was to thetune of INR 2,30,11,188.
Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Unionof India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 63
The Gujarat High Court released theconfisticated cash and goods as the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Departmentdelayed issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) beyond statutory time period.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeHemant M. Prachchhak has observed, "it is quite unfathomable as to why thetime limit is not adhered to and issuance of the show cause notice has beendelayed beyond the statutory time period and hence, intervention will benecessary at the end of this Court by keeping open the rights of therespondents to initiate adjudication process afresh in accordance withlaw."
Case Title: Messers Filatex India Ltd. VersusUnion Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 64
The High Court ruled that the input or output ratios to beconsidered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC).
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala andJustice Nisha M.Thakore has directed Assistant Commissioner toadjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) ofRule 89 of the CGST Rules, but keeping in mind the formula of input or outputratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exportedgoods.
Case Title: M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union OfIndia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 65
The High Court came down heavily on the Goods and ServiceTax Department for technical glitches in the portal.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and JusticeNisha M. Thakore observed that the writ petitioner/ taxpayer has been runningfrom pillar to post requesting the respondents/ department to provide asolution and take care of the technical error and glitch that occurred asregards furnishing the GSTR-6 return for recording and distributing the InputService Distributor (ISD) credit.
Case Title: YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAHVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66
"Mere contacts with the co-accused who were found inpossession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence ofsubstantive material found against the accused," the High Courtaffirmed.
The Bench comprising Justice Umesh A. Trivedi washearing an application under Section 439 for offences under Sections 8(c),22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
Case Title: M/s. IPCA Laboratories VersusCommissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 67
The High Court has held that Input Tax Credit received frominput service distributor lying unutilized in electronic credit ledger isliable to be refunded.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and JusticeNisha M.Thakore directed the respondent/department to process the claim ofrefund made by the writ petitioner/assessee for the unutilized IGST Creditlying in the Electronic Credit Ledger under Section 54 of the CGST Act 2017.
Case Title: SUKESHI VIJAYBHAI BHATT Versus STATEOF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 68
The Gujarat High Court has recently upheld, "withregard to the legality and effect of sanctioned Town Planning Scheme under theBombay Town Planning Act as well as Gujarat Town Planning Act and this Court aswell as Supreme Court has time and again held that once the Draft Scheme issanctioned by the State Government it partakes the character of statute."
Consequently, Justice AJ Desai and Justice Aniruddha P Mayeehave refused to grant compensation to the Appellants/Petitioners.
The High Court made these observations while hearing an LPAwherein the Appellants had challenged the CAV judgement by the Single Judgewhich had refused to grant them compensation under the Town Planning Scheme('Scheme').
SC/STAct- Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted If No Prima Facie Offence Is Made Out:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: CHAUDHARY PRAVINBHAI REVABHAI VersusSTATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
The Gujarat High Court has admitted the criminal appealchallenging the quashment of the bail application for offences under Section323, 332, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of the ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.
The Bench comprising Justice BN Karia hasobserved that the Appellant herein had not used any abusive words regarding thecaste of the Complainant and was not aware of the caste of the Complainant,either.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. UgamsinhDhanrajsinh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The High Court dismissed the appeal of theAppellant-Authorities and confirmed the order of the acquittal by the lowerCourt on the grounds that the Respondent-Accused was not made aware of hisright for being searched before the Magistrate, thereby breaching Section 50 ofthe NDPS Act.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeSandeep Bhatt said,
"IO while acting on prior information and beforemaking search of a person, it is imperative for him to inform therespondent-accused about his right to sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPSAct for being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate formaking search in their presence. It also appears that neither such procedure isfollowed..."
Case Title: RAGHUVERSINH CHANDRASINH SARVAIYAVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
"While conferring benefits viz. pensionary benefits,calculation of the entire service rendered even prior to the benefit of theregular pay scale being conferred needs to be considered for the purpose ofawarding pensionary benefits (from the date of initial appointment as a dailywager)," the High Court affirmed in reference to Section 25B of theIndustrial Disputes Act.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav washearing a Special Civil Application under Article 226 wherein the Petitionersought direction to Respondent Authorities to consider him as permanent workmanand clear arrears of monthly wages, revision of 6th and 7th PayCommission pay-scale benefits along with 12% simple interest per annum.
Case Title: Archana Mukesh Raval v. State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
"Corruption is not to be judged by degree, forcorruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, acceleratesundeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of theinstitutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense ofcivility and mars the marrows of governance", the High Courtreiterated.
In observing so, it has refused to grant anticipatory bailunder Section 438 of CrPC to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections384, 114 and 294B and 506(2) of IPC and Sections 7,12,13(1)(a) read withSection 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Case Title: Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The High Court affirmed that "in deciding the bailapplications an important factor which should certainly be taken intoconsideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial."
Observing thus, the Bench comprising Justice GitaGopi granted bail to an accused under the Central Goods & ServicesAct, 2017.
"Here, taking into consideration the course ofinvestigation adopted by the Department, the evidence, so collected, the trialwill take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicialcustody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is forfive years," it remarked.
FirstVersion Of The Story Reliable; Exaggeration May Occur With Passage of Time:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat vs NatvarsinhPrabhatsinih Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
"In normal circumstances, we believe that, thefirst version is showing the true story of the complaint. If the version ischanged at the time of deposition, it means there may be exaggeration in theversion by passage of time," the High Court opined inconnection with a challenge to the acquittal order of the Sessions Court.
It was the Complainant's case that Accused armed with anaxe, stick, spear, sharp-edged weapon came to the house of the Complainant andtried to loot a water tanker worth INR 20,000 belonging to the Complainant.When the Complainant tried to prevent them, the Accused got provoked anddemolished the household times, beat the family members of the Complainant andthreatened to kill them. Accordingly, an FIR was filed under Sections 395, 427,506(2) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, during the trial, theprosecution presented 13 witnesses to bring home the charges. However, thetrial court, after examining various evidence, acquitted the Accused.
Case Title: Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v.State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
"It is settled law that, in order to bring a casewithin provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicideand in commission of the offence, person who is said to have abetted thealleged suicide, must have played an active role by an act of instigating or bydoing a certain act to facilitate commission of suicide", the HighCourt held.
The Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora was hearingan application under Section 438 of CrPC praying for anticipatory bail inconnection with an FIR for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of IPCand Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. StateOf Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging a governmentorder which permitted Taluka Development Officer, who is an officer under thePanchayat Department, to issue caste certificates under the Gujarat ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Regulations of Issuanceand Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2018.
The petitioner-Trust had challenged the GO stating thatcaste certificate can be issued only by the Revenue Authorities not below therank of Mamlatdar. It was argued that by way of the impugned order of the Stateauthorities, there was a dilution of the stringent provisions of law in issuingcaste certificates.
Case Title: Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v.Deputy Executive Engineer
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
The High Court has affirmed the order of the Labour Courtdetermining that the Petitioner-workman was not entitled to reinstatement onthe ground that there was discrepancy in his deposition and the documentsproduced by him.
The Petitioner herein had claimed that he had joined theservices of the Respondent in 1983 and was performing the duties of thelabourer/table work as a daily wager. Since he possessed educationalqualifications, he was also given office table work. However, it was alleged byhim that he was terminated orally in September 1988 without due process underthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Aggrieved, he approached the Labour Courtwhich dismissed his application in December 2007.
Case Title: Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. Stateof Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities toconsider regularizing the services of Petitioner-employees, working oncontractual basis on interceptor boats for coastal security in the State's HomeDepartment since over 11 years.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav notedthat the Petitioners had been recruited, albeit, on a contractual basis, aftera public advertisement and a duly constituted selection committee consisting ofthe Additional Secretary, Law & Order, Director of Sainik Welfare Board, arepresentative each of the police, navy and coats guard respectively and aJilla Sainik Kalyan Officer.
Case Title: Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni(Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a Rohingyawoman alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 114 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Passport Act and Sections 13,14A(a) and 14A(b) of Foreigners Act.
The Applicant had submitted that considering the nature ofallegations and the role of the Applicant, it was suitable to be released onbail. Per contra, the Respondent-Authority vehemently contended that the natureof the offence was grave and bail should not be granted.
IntentionOr Knowledge Essential To Attract Section 307 IPC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai NevsingbhaiRathva
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
"What is material to attract offense under section307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge with which all the acts are doneirrespective of its results", the Gujarat High Court has heldrecently.
Justice Sandeep Bhatt made this observation inconnection with a criminal appeal challenging the order of acquittal of theaccused for offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed withdeadly weapon), 149/143 (Unlawful assembly), 307 (Attempt to murder), 323(Voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506(2)(Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company LimitedVersus Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
The Gujarat High Court has held that when proceedingsagainst a driver are instituted for negligence causing a motor accident, thensuch driver's statements cannot form part of the charge sheet filed againsthim.
"The copy of charge-sheet filed against the driverof the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in theCourt of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his ownstatement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part ofcharge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial", JusticeUmesh Trivedi opined.
Case Title: Janakbhai @ Alpeshbhai MafatbhaiRabari & 1 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
The Gujarat High Court permitted compounding of offenceunder Section 323 of IPC, notwithstanding that the accused was also originallycharged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi notedthat the Court below had acquitted the Petitioners-accused for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 504, 506(2), 427 read with 114 of the IPCand Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and no appeal against such acquittal waspreferred by the complainant/ State.
Case Title: Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Kumarkhaniya(Devipujak) & 3 Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 5 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on the policefor being "swayed by the fact that the Petitioners belong to aparticular community" while investigating activities of theft and otherwrongs under Sections 328 and 394 of IPC has expressed dismay at the"apathy of the police officials, more particularly senior officers…"
Justice Nikhil Kariel was hearing a specialcriminal application filed by the Petitioners involving "extremeexcess" by the police authorities including senior officers of the levelof DySP and SP who were responsible for conducting an impartial inquiry. TheBench noted that the victims, members of a certain community, were earningtheir living through honest occupation when an FIR was filed against twounknown males and unknown females. According to the inquiry conducted byRespondent No. 6, the Petitioners 1 and 2 (brothers) were passing on amotorbike and were intercepted by the police. When they did not stop, theyslipped and were caught by the police. It was observed that the only evidenceagainst the Petitioners was their own confession which was used for submittingthe chargesheet. Subsequently, the charges against the Petitioners did notstand during trial.
Case Title: Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel(Deleted) v. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
The Gujarat High Court recently granted anticipatory bail tothe Applicants-accused in connection with an alleged case of cheating to thetune of Rs. 1,000 crore.
It was alleged that the applicants had misused terms andconditions of agreement and disbursed only Rs. 9 crore, with object to takeover the company and its properties worth approximately Rs.1000 crores.
While allowing the plea for pre-arrest bail filed by theaccused charged for alleged commission of offences under Section 120B, 420, 406and 114 of IPC, Justice Ilesh Vora said,
"prima-facie, it appears that the dispute is purelya civil in nature. The principal accused Bharat Patel is passed away. Theapplicants have cooperated in the investigation. Whole case is based ondocumentary evidence and same has been collected by the IO during the course ofinvestigation."
Case Title: Dilip Bhavanishankar Yadav v. StateOf Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 85
"Unless and until, the material is there to make outa case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as todisturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is inperil disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be saidthat the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(b) of the GujaratPrevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985", the Gujarat HighCourt has opined.
The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra Sareen washearing a special civil application against the order of detention datedDecember 2021 against the Petitioner herein under Section 3(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Mayank Jayantbhai Shah S/O Jayant ManharlalShah Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
The Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to the Directorof a chemical company, in connection with disposal of the hazardous wastematerial produced by it in a creek, causing injury to two persons.
The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi notedthat the company had entered into an agreement with M/S Sangam for transportingthe waste material to the treatment plant in accordance to CPCB Co-processingguidelines 2016 and 201. Thus, it held,
"Sangam was authorised to provide the work ofcollection, transportation of hazardous waste material to Dalmia Cement BharatLimited plants at Odhisa, Karnataka and Bihar, and the authorisation fortransportation of hazardous waste materials was in accordance to CPCBCo-processing guidelines 2016 and 2017, and therefore, it would be theresponsibility of the transporter to take waste by-products to its destination.The petitioner company or the petitioner himself would have no knowledge of anymisdeed of the transporter. The liability would lie on the company who engagesthe transporter and it is the duty of the transporter to see that the saidwaste product reaches plant or to its destination."
Case Title: A B C (Victim) vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
The Gujarat High Court recently allowed the plea of a minorrape victim to terminate her 6 weeks old pregnancy, on the ground that ifpregnancy continues, it would cause lifelong mental agony to the her coupledwith socio-economic problems.
"Petitioner is pregnant because of forcible rape bythe accused...because of continuation of pregnancy, it would cause orconstitute a grave injury to the mental health of the minor – victim coupledwith the fact that bearing and rearing of child in the womb would create agreat mental agony to her for her entire life and invite many othersocio-economical problems. This can be said to be a grave injury to the mentalhealth of the pregnant woman."
Case Title: Shantaben Ambalal Patel & 1Other(S) Versus Sunitaben Vijaykumar Joshi
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
Affirming the settled law that Appellate Courts must notdisturb the discretionary order of the Trial Court at interim stage even ifsecond view of the matter is possible, the Gujarat High Court has allowed anappeal challenging lower court's order declining to grant interim injunction inrespect of a construction, allegedly interfering with Appellant's easementaryrights.
The Bench of Justice AP Thaker orderedstatus quo with respect to the construction towards the eastern wall of thePlaintiff's residence till both the parties lead their evidence in support oftheir claim and counter-claim. It said,
"Prima facie, it appears that the plaintiffs haveput up this construction in his own land keeping certain portion of land openfor common wall. Now, on perusal of the Photograph produced in the matter, itclearly appears that the constructions of the defendant is completely adjacentwith the wall of the plaintiffs. At this juncture, it is also pertaining tonote that defendant has also filed counter claim for closure of the window andbalcony of the plaintiffs which is on the eastern side wall of the property ofthe plaintiff. Thus, prima-facie it appears that when suit was filed there wasno construction, obstructing the window and balcony of the plaintiff's propertyon the eastern side. Now, there is allegation and counter allegation, regardingthe easementary right as well as regarding illegal construction and there isalso counter claim for removal of window and balcony. Under these facts andcircumstances, it is necessary that status-quo be maintained till both theparties lead their evidence in support of their claim and counter-claim."
Case Title: Chauhan Mahmadrafik Abdul LatifVersus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited Through Authorized Person
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
The Gujarat High Court has imposed a fine of INR 50,000 onOil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited while holding as follows;
"since it prima facie appears that the exclusion of thepetitioner was not by an accident and further, in any case, the respondentorganization, more particularly, being a Public Sector Undertaking under theGovernment of India was required to act fairly, more particularly, whileconsidering the candidature of an Ex-Servicemen candidate, which therespondents have not done, hence this is a fit case for imposition of costs.Thus, costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) is also directed to bepaid by the respondents to the present petitioner."
DepartmentCannot Block GST ITC Without Assigning Any Reason: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s New Nalbandh Traders VersusState of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 90
The Gujarat High Court bench of JusticeJ.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the departmentcannot block the Input Tax Credit (ITC) without assigning any reason to theassessee.
The writ petitioner/assessee, a proprietary concern, is inthe business of trading in M.S. scrap for the past 13 years. The proprietaryfirm purchases the scraps from different suppliers and sells them to differententities.
Case Title: Manoj @ Munnabhai AshwinbhaiSomabhai Parmar Versus Director General Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
"Unless and until, the material is there to make outa case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as todisturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is inperil disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be saidthat the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Act,"the Gujarat High Court has upheld today.
Justice AP Thaker was hearing a petition againstthe detention of the Petitioner by the Respondent authorities under Section3(2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act 1988.
Case Title: Ramsingbhai Saburbhai Patel vs StateOf Gujarat
Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 92
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed and set asidethe order of termination of an employee, who was convicted for corruption, onthe ground that he was neither given a show cause notice before suchtermination nor an opportunity to explain his case.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav directedthe employer to reinstate the employee to his original post along withconsequential benefits and backwages. However, liberty is granted to passappropriate order afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner and considering the reply which may be filed.
Case Title: Union Of India Thro Amitkumar,Intelligence Officer Or His Successor In Office Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the acquittal of anaccused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on theground that she was merely accompanying her husband and had no knowledge ofcontraband being carried in the bag.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora remarkedthat her conscious possession as understood under the law does not surface evena reasonable doubt.
The development ensued in a State-appeal, preferred againstthe order of Special Judge, acquitting the Accused No. 2 (wife of accused no.1) for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
ProbateShall Be Granted Only To An Executor Appointed By The Will: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs MeenabenHirenbhai Parekh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
The Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi ofthe Gujarat High Court has been hearing an Article 227 petition challenging theorder of the Trial Judge pertaining to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC.
The brief facts of the case were that the deceased mother ofthe Petitioners/Appellants was the owner of certain movable and immovableproperties and had executed a will in 2013 in favour of thePetitioners/Appellants. Subsequent to the death of the mother, the Petitionersbecame owners of the properties and preferred an application seeking theprobate of the will while the Trial Judge invited objections against theapplication.
The Respondent therein filed an objection against theissuance of probate in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners thereforepreferred the application in question in 2016 seeking amendment of probateapplication praying for the replacement of the word Probate by Letter ofAdministration. This application was rejected and hence the petition was filed.
FraudulentClaim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High CourtGrants Bail
Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State ofGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
The Gujarat High Court bench of JusticeGita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing theinput tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties,which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.
The applicant, a designated partner and managing director of"Utkarsh Ispat LLP," which is in the business of purchasing mildsteel scrap and, thereafter, converting it into mild steel billet. Thedepartment conducted a search and seizure operation at the factory and officepremises of the LLP and at the residence of the applicant on the ground thatseveral purchase transactions had been made from fictitious entities.
GujaratHigh Court Grants Interim Injunction On Immovable Property Based On 'AgreementTo Sell'
Case Title: Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vsRameshbhai Hirabhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
The Gujarat High Court ordered interim injunction on animmovable property and restrained its owner from changing its status during thependency of the suit, based on an agreement to sell arrived at between theparties.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker observed,
"So far as the suit based on agreement to sell forspecific performance of contract, even if that agreement to sell is notregistered, same can be considered for collateral purpose... If there is contractof agreement to sell and the same is not refused by the defendant and furtherwhen legal notice has been issued to the defendant for purpose of thatcontract, if no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, then, theremight be multiplicity of litigation in case defendant transfers the propertyduring the pendency of the litigation."
Case title - Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v.Directorate General Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Quashing a detention order passed u/s 3 (2) of thePrevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct, 1988 [PITNDPS Act], the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday observed thatsimpliciter registration of FIR by itself cannot haveany nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
With this, the Bench of Justice A. P. Thaker ALLOWED theplea moved by detenue Mohsinkhan and QUASHED the impugnedorder of detention (dated 29.11.2021) passed by the respondent – detaining.
Case Title: Chandra Darshan Developers Through PartnerVersus Hiralal Gopalbhai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
"The object of the interlocutory injunction, it isstated is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rightsfor which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in theaction if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial", theGujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker wasconsidering an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) against the order passed by theMagistrate Court in a Special Civil Suit restricting the Defendants(Appellants, herein) from selling, transferring, mortgaging or passing anyinterest to third party in the suit property.
Dealer'sGST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat HighCourt
Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal VersusState of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala andJustice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to paya hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the charteredaccountant's mistake.
The writ was against the the cancellation of the GSTregistration. The chartered accountant of the assessee wanted the HUFregistration to be cancelled. Instead of inserting the registration number ofthe HUF, inadvertently, the CA inserted the registration number of theproprietorship. In such circumstances, the registration of the proprietary firmunder the GST was cancelled.
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVALDEEPAKKKUMAR SHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that without apositive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committingsuicide, conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot besustained.
"The essential ingredients of the offence underSection 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aidor instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused,however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable ofsuggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased tocommit suicide."
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. VersusCommercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala andJustice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attachingthe personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues weresettled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.
The writ-petitioner/assessee, a company which is a taxableentity, has incurred liability towards the payment of tax under the provisionsof the GVAT Act. The company incurred a liability in the year 2013. The companypreferred an application under the "Vera Samadhan Yojana, 2019". Anapplication was filed on November 6th, 2019. In accordance with the scheme, thecompany was required to pay an amount, and upon deposit of the amount, theinterest to the tune of Rs.60,53,560 was waived. The company deposited theamount under the scheme and discharged its total liability.
Case Title: Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad VersusDy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Averring that there was no delay in making payment ofpensionary benefits as alleged by the Appellants, the Gujarat High Court hasrefused to interfere in the Letters Patent Appeal seeking Respondentauthorities to pay all the consequential pensionary benefits and 18% intereston delayed payment.
The Appellant herein had his services terminated againstwhich he and other persons had filed a reference which was allowed.Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled to similar benefits asanother similarly placed daily wager. The Appellant had also approached theCourt by way of Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act wherein the Division Benchhad observed:
"In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that therespondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court.As much as pensionary benefits are extended and received by the applicant,during the pendency of this application, we are of the view that it is not afit case to be proceeded further under the provisions of the Contempt of CourtsAct, 1971."
DistinctionBetween "Attachment Of Property" And "Charge OverProperty": Gujarat High Court Explains
Case Title: Shree Radhekrushna Ginning AndPressing Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
"Attachment creates no charge or lien upon the attachedproperty. It merely prevents and avoids private alienations; it does not conferany title on the attaching creditors", the Gujarat High Court affirmedin a judgment.
Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a writapplication under Art 226 wherein the Applicant had prayed for the issuance ofa writ of mandamus for the quashment of the order by Respondent No. 2 andthereby release the charge on the property of the Applicant
Case Title: Symphony Limited Vs ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and JusticeNisha M. Thakore has held that the issuance of a show cause noticealong with the draft assessment order is absolutely necessary before passing anorder under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The writ petitioner/assesseefiled its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 at Rs. 197,12,28,420. Later,the return was revised at Rs. 197,12,28,420. The case of the assessee wasselected for scrutiny under the CASS to verify a few issues.
Case Title: Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 105
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that merely onaccount of the name of a candidate figuring in the select list, the candidatewould not acquire any indefeasible right for being appointed. However, this isnot a completely unqualified proposition. The State cannot act in an arbitrarymanner and the decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken bona fide forappropriate reasons.
It thereby reaffirmed the law laid down in ShankarsanDash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 wherein it washeld:
"It is not correct to say that if a number ofvacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates arefound fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to beappointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notificationmerely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply forrecruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to thepost.... However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting inan arbitrary manner."
Case Title: Harkishanbhai Dahyabhai Lad vs StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 106
The Gujarat High Court has held that past services of thedaily-wagers where they have completed 240 days of continuous service as perSection 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, would qualify for pension.
Justice Biren Vaishnav, heavily relying on the caseof Executive Engineer, Panchayat v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Phedi, held,
"for counting the period for purposes of pension,the date of initial appointment needs to be taken into consideration and forthe purposes of taking initial date of appointment those years in which thepetitioners have completed 240 days have to be counted for the purposes ofpension."
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. TheCommercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 107
"It can be said that in interpreting a taxingstatute, the equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The reasons ofmorality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is notwithin the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make himliable to payment of tax," Justice JB Pardiwala ofthe Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench was hearing a writ application under Art 226wherein the Applicants had prayed for the quashment of the impugned noticeissued under the Value Added Tax, 2003 for the payment of outstanding sum ofINR 1,68,02,573 and attachment of the personal properties of the director andthe brother of director. They also sought a stay on the notice until thedisposal of the petition.
Case Title: Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs TheState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 108
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted anticipatorybail to an Applicant-accused, alleged to be supplier of prohibited animals.
The Applicant was booked for alleged commission of offencesunder Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention ofCruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sections 6(a), 4, 3 and 8(2) of Gujarat Animals PreservationAct and Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.The provisions pertain to animal cruelty, transportation of animals in a mannerso as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.
GujaratHigh Court Stays Removal Of Vice-Chancellor Of Gujarat Vidyapith University
Case Title: Rajendra Amulakh Khimani Versus TheUniversity Grants Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 109
The Gujarat High Court has stayed the removal of theVice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Vidyapith (Deemed to be University) Ahmedabadpursuant to the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in November2021 directing the Chancellor to remove the Petitioner-Vice Chancellor.
The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging thedecision of the UGC and claimed that the removal was in breach of Regulation10.12.2.E of the UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations,2019.
Case Title: Somiben Arvindbhai Patel VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
The Gujarat High Court has recently come to the rescue ofsmall vegetable sellers by setting aside the notice of the Collector, askingthem to vacate a government land for construction of a Police station.
The Court rejected the ground stated by the Collector thatpetitioners request for allotment of land cannot be acceded without publicauction, because they are carrying on commercial purpose. It observed,
"petitioners are doing small businesslike that of selling of vegetables / fruits, etc. by keeping small sheds and lorries.Therefore, if that activities are considered, it cannot be termed as largescale commercial activities and, therefore, if the vocation of the petitionersare considered then it is of small retail business then the other governmentlands can be considered for allotment of appropriate portion of land, availablein the vicinity to the petitioners."
Case Title: M/S Bharmal Indane Service versusIndian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 111
The Gujarat High Court has ruled thatpetition for referring the matter to arbitration cannot be disallowed on theground that the dispute involves interpretation of policy guidelines.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar heldthat whether there is an arbitrable dispute or not and whether the ArbitralTribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute is an issue which can bedecided by the arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 112
The Gujarat High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to aman accused of forcefully converting religion of 37 Hindu families and 100Hindus. It was also alleged that the Applicant lured them by offering financialassistance and converted a house constructed with Government funds to a placeof worship — Ibadatgaah.
"Prima facie from the record produced by theprosecution, it appears that the present appellant has attempted to convertdirectly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of forceor by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor any person abet suchconversion. Considering the material placed on record before this Court as wellas reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayerto release the appellant on anticipatory bail, as prayed for," JusticeBN Karia said.
Case Title: Kameshbhai Niranjanbhai SopariwalaVersus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 113
The Gujarat High Court recently refused to exercise its writjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue directions forregistration of FIR on a complaint lodged by the Petitioner, observing that ifsuch petitions are entertained then the High Courts will be flooded and willnot be able to do any other work.
Justice AS Supehia refused to quash the closurereport by the Respondent authorities and opined that the Petitioner had theremedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC andtherefore, the High Court was not required to interfere with the petition. Itwas noted that the Apex Court had expressed concerns with regard to the filingof such applications directly before the High Court which increases the burdenof the courts.
"It is noticed by this Court that variousapplications seeking registration of FIR are being filed before this Courtdirectly without approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. Such applications, which are directly filed are in direct conflictwith the observations of the Apex Court."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Paramjit @Kali Himmatsingh Chima
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114
Emphasising that procedure under Section 50 of theNDPS Act needs to be followed in a just and proper manner, the GujaratHigh Court has upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the Respondentaccused of offences under Sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substance Act.
The facts of the case were that brown sugar packaged in aplastic bag was retrieved from the Respondent, herein. After the filing ofcomplaint and chargesheet, the witnesses were examined however certain panchasand witnesses turned hostile and supported the case of the prosecution.Subsequently, the trial court after perusing the evidence on record acquittedthe accused.
SeizedProperty May Be Returned If Vulnerable To Decay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 115
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted the petitionseeking the quashment of order seizing the vehicles of the Petitioner under theGujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules,2017 and under Sections 4(1)A, 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of the Mines and Mineral(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. An FIR was also registered against thePetitioner for offences under Sections 379, 114 and 120B of IPC.
It was contested that the vehicles were the only means oflivelihood for the Petitioner and if they were kept in further seizure, theircondition will deteriorate since the trial will take time to conclude. Percontra, the Appellants submitted that the Petitioner was involved in illegalmining and therefore, the petition ought to have been rejected.
Case Title: Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd VersusGujarat Industrial Development Corporation & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 116
The High Court reiterated that sufficient cause is theparamount consideration while dealing with application for delay condonationand if sufficient cause is shown, the Court should generally condone the delay.
The Bench comprising Justice AC Joshi howeveradded,
"If the sufficient cause is imbibed with the laxityand mala fides on the part of the delayer despite due knowledge, then Courtshould restrain itself from encouraging such practice and condone the delay."
Case Title: Ishwarlal Kasturlal Pandya vs IbrahimbhaiFarukdin Vohra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 117
The High Court enhanced the compensation granted by theMotor Vehicles Tribunal to the Applicant, working in an agricultural land,computing his "functional disability" to be 100%, after he sustainedfracture injuries on both the legs, on head and right hand on being dashed by aTruck while riding his scooter.
The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Bhatt observedthat the Tribunal had awarded compensation towards future loss of income.However, considering Applicant's 100% functional disability in terms of theSupreme Court decision in v. Ram Avtar Tomar, the amount of compensation isrequired to be enhanced.
Case Title: Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 118
The High Court yet again came to the rescue of aninter-faith couple, by directing the State Police to protect the couple fromtheir families who are opposed to their relationship.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna M. Bhatt ordered that initially, the protection be provided forfour months. Whichever place they attempt to settle, the SP/ACP of theconcerned Zone shall look into the matter. Thereafter, if the couple continuesto be at Ahmedabad, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City shall take a callafter four months whether to continue such protection or not.
Case Title: M/S M N Trapasia versus DivisionalRailway Manager (WA)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 119
The High Court ruled that unless theembargo placed under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (A&C Act) is waived by the parties, the provisions of Section 12(5)would continue to be attracted.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar heldthat there cannot be a deemed waiver of Section 12(5) by merely issuing aletter or communication calling upon the opposite party to waive the embargo.
Case Title: Botad Taluka Sahkari Kharid ... vsBhagirathbhai Kanubhai Khachar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 120
The High Court has recently granted relief to a workman whowas terminated from his services via an oral communication, in violation ofmandatory provisions pertaining to retrenchment under Sections 25F and 25G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered that theaggrieved workman be paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards lump-sum compensation toRespondent No.1-Workman, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of serviceand 20% back-wages.
Case Title: Aryan Siris Garange (Arayan ShirishGarange) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 121
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia hasrecently granted bail to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 363,366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4,6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.Justice AS Supehia observed:
"The first step of turning him into a hardcorecriminal will be sending him behind bars. The moment he is allowed to go behindbars, the efforts to make him a good and law abiding citizen will get dented.The applicant is a young student studying in First Year college and it isexpected from him to observe and follow the fundamental duties of a goodcitizen as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Alok Kistuchand Agarwal vs SubRegistrar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 122
"Once any immovable property is mortgaged /hypothecated towards secured creditors then having regard to the provisionscontained in Section 2(zc) to (zf) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with theprovisions contained in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the securedcreditor will have the first charge on the secured assets", the HighCourt has affirmed recently.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and JusticeNisha Thakore was hearing a writ petition filed by a secured creditor,aggrieved by a letter issued by the Sub-registrar, imposing charges andencumbrances over the secured assets.
Case Title: Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus Stateof Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 123
The High Court bench of JusticeJ.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has heldthat the provisional attachment should not hamper normal business activities ofthe taxable person.
The writ petitioner/assessee is in the business ofmanufacturing and selling ingots, having a factory situated near Rajkot,Gujarat State. The assessee is duly registered under the GST Act.
The assessee claimed to have regularly paid output tax forthree financial years. The assessee entered into business transactions onlywith genuine dealers who were registered taxable persons under the GST Act. Insupport, the assessee has placed on record, regularly maintained records of thepurchase transactions, which include invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips,photographs of material being unloaded, material received inspection reportetc.
Case Title: M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State ofGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 124
The High Court bench of JusticeJ.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore hascondemned the coercive steps of the department for recovery of dues from Wiprowhen the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority as well as theTribunal.
The writ petitioner, Wipro Ltd. is in the business of informationtechnology services, including the sale of hardware and software, the sale ofconsumer products, and the supply and installation of solar power generationplants. The writ petitioner was registered under the VAT Act and the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956 for the relevant period.
Case Title: Modern Syntex (I) Limited vsAssistant Commissioner Of CGST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 125
The High Court has recently issued a writdirecting the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and CentralExcise to initiate and complete the final assessment proceedingsconcerning the Applicant company and further release the Bank Guarantees infavour of the Applicant within two months. The Applicant company had alsoshowed monetary losses worth INR 96,87,616 due to the bank guarantee chargesand claimed compensation for the same in its writ application.
Case Title: I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 126
The High Court has directed the revenue tore-credit/restore the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of INR 1,39,49,810 inthe electronic tax ledger of the writ petitioner . The Bench comprising JusticeJB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore was hearing a writ petitionwhich sought from the Respondent-authorities to re-credit the ITC of INR139,49,810 in the electronic credit ledger along with interest.
Case Title: Richa W/O Kushal Mistry And D/OHemantkumar Adhvaryu Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
The High Court has allowed a writ seeking a direction uponthe Registrar of Marriages to consider the petitioners' application forissuance of a fresh marriage certificate, mentioning the date on which apompous wedding was held with 'saptapadi', rather than a former date on whichthe couple had exchanged varmala in presence of a small gathering.
Due to pandemic of COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed bythe Government on public gathering, the writ applicants entered into marriagewith a very small number of relatives attending the marriage. The marriageinvitation was not prepared and the couple only performed the ceremonies ofexchanging garlands, tying mangalsutra and applying sindhoor. However, theceremony of "datta homa" and "Saptapadi" (i.e. taking sevensteps around the sacred fire) were not performed.
Case Title: Hiren Dahyabhai Rathod vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 128
The High Court quashed and set aside theorder of termination issued against the Petitioner, sans any inquiry, merely onthe basis of a FIR registered against him under the Prevention of CorruptionAct.
It directed that the Petitioner be reinstated however, itrefused to grant back-wages considering the principle of no work, no pay, asalso applied by a Division Bench in similar facts in State of Gujarat vs ChetanJayantilal Rajgor.
Case Title: Aveshbhai @ Avalo Ganibhai GhoniyaThrough Brother Azimbhai Ganibhai Ghoni V/S The District Magistrate AndCollector & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 129
"Whenever an order under a preventive detention lawis challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legalityis : Was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation ?If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal",the High Court affirmed.
The Bench comprising Justice Nirzar S Desai was hearing apetition against the order of detention passed by the Respondent authorityunder Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act,1985. The Petitioner herein was detained and categorised as a 'dangerouspersons' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Case Title: Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs StateOf Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained in the contextof the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 that if the complaint is not registered asenvisaged under Rule 12(ii) of the Rules of 2017, the competent authority willhave to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee.
The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati washearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking thequashment of the impugned order which seized the vehicle of the Petitioner.
Case Title: Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vsMother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a LabourCourt directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers anyproceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable topay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the HighCourt.
Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, theBench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice HemantPrachchhak observed,
"Section 17B of the Act clearly provides that whenthe Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefersany proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall beliable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of suchproceedings in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of anymaintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had notbeen employed in any establishment during such period."
Case Title: Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
The Gujarat High Court while making note of the Apex Court'sdecision in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT hasaffirmed that within a period of six months from the date of production ofvehicle before the Court, the seized vehicle should be disposed ofappropriately and not be kept at police stations for a long time. Further, ifthe vehicle is not claimed by the Accused, then the insurance company or thirdperson can auction it under the direction of the Court.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J Vora madethese observations while hearing a petition invoking the extraordinaryjurisdiction of the High Court under Art 226 and the supervisory jurisdictionunder Art 227 along with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 ofCrPC for the release of the Muddamal Vehicle.
Case Title: Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133
The Gujarat High Court has directed its administrativedepartment to grant appointment to the Petitioner, a physically challengedcandidate, who had applied for the post of Peon (Class IV) under the PhysicallyHandicapped category.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav consideredthat two vacancies had arisen before the expiry of the waitlist in whichPetitioner's name figured at serial number 67, however, the appointment couldnot be made since the Recruitment Cell was not informed about the same in duetime.
Case Title: Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus TheRegional Provident Fund Commissioner II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134
The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional ProvidentFund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employerunder Section 8(B) and 8(G) of the Employee's Provident Fund and MiscellaneousAct, 1952, citing non availability of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav stated that inthe absence of a Presiding Officer at the Tribunal, the appeal filed by theemployer against recovery order could not be heard.
Case Title: LH Of Late Harijan ShivabhaiBapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition of aland-owner, seeking directions to re-compute the award passed by the competentauthority in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose ofconstruction of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway.
The Petitioners sought that the compensation be revised byapplying the market value of the land with Multiplier Factor-2 since the landwas a 'rural area'. All other statutory benefits under the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013 including solatium under Section 30(1) and interestunder Section 30(3) of the Act.
Case Title: Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus GujaratGaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136
In huge relief to a 29-year old woman bearing theresponsibility of her ailing mother while simultaneously trying to build hercareer, the Gujarat High Court has removed the ban imposed on her by the StateSubordinate Services Selection Board, precluding her from appearing in anycompetitive exam for three years. The coercive measure was taken against thewoman after she was found carrying a mobile phone in one of the exams conductedby the Board.
"…was this single act of carrying a mobile phoneso reprehensible that she needs to be debarred for a period of three years isthe question", the Bench comprising Justice BirenVaishnav wondered.
The Court was dealing with an Article 226 petition moved bythe woman, stating that she did not resort to any unfair means and the carriedthe mobile inside the exam hall very inadvertently.
Case Title: Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs StateOf Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 137
The High Court has refused to interfere in an applicationpraying for the quashing of the criminal complaints for offences under Sections406, 420, 114 and 120B of IPC wherein the Complainant had alleged that theAccused had not made payments for purchasing grey cloth worth "lacs ofrupees".
It was alleged that the Accused had promised the Complainantthat they would be making payment of goods within one month of the cloth beingsold and on the basis of such promise, the large value of the cloth was sold.The Accused had sold cloth to other persons, misappropriated the amount,cheated the Complainant and committed a breach of trust, it was alleged.Accordingly, an FIR was filed with the Katadargam Police Station.
Case Title: Time Cinemas and Entertainment PvtLtd versus Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138
The High Court has ruled that once anapplication under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(A&C Act) seeking interim measures has been disposed of, a subsequentsimilar application seeking similar reliefs, which were already dealt with inthe earlier proceedings, is not maintainable.
The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and SamirJ. Dave, held that principal relief cannot be granted at the interim stage,and granting interim directions which are in the nature of main relief is notpermissible in law.
Case Title: Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar VersusState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
The Gujarat High Court recently asked a man to reimburse 50%expenses incurred by the Police department in tracing a girl he had lured toelope, despite being married himself.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna Bhatt observed,
"We need to particularly record that here is a casewhere the respondent no.4 knowing fully well his own marital status, has luredthe girl and his repeated actions of such nature has not only made it extremelydifficult for the parties but, because of that, the Police had to work for longmany hours and after about 7 months, the corpus could be traced."
RaeesPromotion Stampede | Gujarat High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against ActorShah Rukh Khan
Case title - Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer TajMohammed v. State Of Gujarat 1 other
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140
The High Court quashed a case against actorActor Shah Rukh Khan registered against him in connection with a stampede thathappened at Vadodara Railway Station during his film, Raees' promotions in theyear 2017.
The Bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel observedthat the act on part of Khan could not be termed to be so grossly negligent orreckless, neither could be an act on part of the petitioner be treated as theproximate and efficient cause of the unruly incidents at the Railway Station
Case Title: Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal UpadhyayVersus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141
The High Court quashed an FIR and the order of convictionpassed in a matrimonial dispute, observing that the offences involved were ofnon-serious and private nature.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora quashedthe FIR registered under Sections 498(a), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of theIndian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 andset aside the order of conviction passed by Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Ahmedabad.
"In light of the settled principle of law, itappears that the criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or wherethe offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulledirrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal standsdismissed against conviction," it observed.
InterestOn Delayed Payment Of Gratuity Mandatory, Not Discretionary: Gujarat High CourtReiterates
Case Title: Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani VersusState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142
The High Court has reiterated that there is a clear mandateon the employer under the provisions of Section 7 to the Payment of GratuityAct, for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayedpayment of gratuity.
In light of the above, the Bench of Justice BirenVaishnav directed the Sardar Patel University to pay Rs. 10 lakhstowards gratuity of the Petitioner, a retired reader, along with interest at 9%for wrongfully withholding the gratuity since his retirement in 2013.
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi VersusHiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi & 2 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143
The High Court has held that the bar of Section195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumeratedin the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after ithas been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. duringthe time when the document was in 'custodia legis'.
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall takecognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to havebeen committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in aproceeding in any Court.
Case Title: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 144
The High Court granted custody of a 5 years old child, whoseparents had passed away during Covid-19 pandemic, to his maternal aunt, overthe claim made by his paternal grandparents.
The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna Bhatt observed,
"The court while deciding the child custody cases isnot bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though theprovisions of the special statues govern the rights of the parents orguardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in casesconcerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for thecourt ought to be child interest and welfare of the child."
Case Title: Messrs Aztec Fluids And MachineryPvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145
The High Court bench of JusticeSonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Saraen, whileinvalidating the reassessment initiated by the DRI, held that the officer whodid the assessment could only undertake reassessment.
The petitioner/assessee is a private limited company and isin the business of trading and manufacturing goods like inkjet printers, laserprinters, and parts as well as accessories for printers. The petitioner hasbeen importing goods like Continuous Inkjet Printers (CIJ Printers), LaserMarking Machines, parts and accessories for CIJ Printers, and other such goodsfrom foreign countries. They are being imported from China during the periodfrom 2014 to 2021.
Case Title: Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vsCommissioner Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 146
Drawing a distinction between the term 'public order' and'law and order'', the High Court has held that mere registration of FIR/sagainst an accused person does not mean he is a threat to the society ordisturbs all social apparatus.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and JusticeSandeep Bhatt observed,
"Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannothave any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order...no otherrelevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) ofthe Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985."
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ARJANBHAITITABHAI BARAIYA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
Affirming the view that regularly selected employees cannotbe continued for long on contractual, adhoc or temporary basis and that theyought to be regularised, the High Court came to the rescue of an AssistantEngineer who was appointed in the aftermath of 2001 Gujarat Earthquake.
A Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and JusticeHemant Prachchhak upheld the order of a single judge directing theRevenue Department and Urban Development & Urban Housing Department of theState Government to "positively consider" the request forregularisation.
IncomeTax Not Applicable On Interest Awarded By The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal:Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VersusChief Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 148
The High Court bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore held that theinterest awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) under section 171of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The writ applicant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is aninsurance company. One Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed in the CityCivil Court of Ahmedabad. The claim petition was allowed by the MACT.
Case Title: Shiv Garment Through Sole Prop.Rameshchandra Gigaji Maurya v. Suryaben Kantilal Mehta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149
Averring that the powers under Article 227 of theConstitution should be exercised sparingly, only with a view to keep theTribunals/ subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority, the GujaratHigh Court has rejected a petition praying for a direction upon the Respondentto carry out necessary repairs in the suit property.
The petitioner had approached the High Court against theorder passed by a City Civil Court, rejecting such prayer.
Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed,
"High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errorsof law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunalsor Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words thejurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."
Case Title: Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt vsHitesh Jayantilal Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 150
"It is trite law that a party should not suffer dueto the in action on the part of the advocate and that the matter should bedecided on merits rather than on technical ground", the GujaratHigh Court has affirmed while hearing a petition under Art 227 to open theright to file written statement which was closed on 1st May2012.
The Petitioner herein submitted that the Respondent partyhad filed a civil suit in 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction.Pursuant to the summons, the Petitioners filed their appearance through theiradvocate. However, subsequently, there were no instructions from the advocaterepresenting the Petitioners for filing the written statement owing to whichthe Petitioner's right to file the written statement was closed on 1st May2012. The Respondent, thereafter, filed his affidavit in lieu of examination inchief and the Petitioners then learnt that their written statement had not beenfiled leading to a delay of 3,330 days.
Case Title: Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai Kuniya VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 151
The High Court CAME to the aid of some Forest Guards, whowere denied the benefit of past service on the basis of an undertaking given bythem that they have no objection of losing seniority for enabling theirtransfer.
The Petitioners had challenged a resolution that providedfor a policy of considering the period of five years of the incumbents who wereappointed on a fixed pay for the purposes of seniority, promotion, higher payscale and terminal benefits from their initial date of engagement and not fromthe date of their regularization
Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt VersusUnion Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
The High Court bench of JusticeJ.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore held that,as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, a claim of refund may be made directly bythe recipient if he has borne the burden of tax.
The writ applicant is a practising advocate in the HighCourt. The writ applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent,Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., for the purchase of a plot. Theagreement encompassed the construction of a bungalow on the plot of land by therespondent for the writ applicant.
Case Title: Vijay Arvind Jariwala v. Umang JatinGandhi, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16131 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 153
The High Court held that a third partycannot be impleaded as a party to an application for interim reliefs underSection 9 of the A&C Actunless it is a party who is claiming under a partyto the arbitration agreement.
The Division Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and JusticeSamir J.Dave has held that the remedy under the Arbitration Act isbetween the parties to the arbitration agreement, therefore, the third partyhas no concern with the proceedings of Section 9 nor the said provisionrecognizes the inclusion of the third party, who may be independently claimingthe rights against the parties to the arbitration and vice versa.
Updates From High Court/Gujarat Courts
The Gujarat High Court is set to examine whether the actionof Schools sending reminders to parents for non-payment of fees amounts to anoffence under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015.
The provision provides punishment for cruelty to child,which may lead to physical or "mental suffering".
Justice Bhargav Karia has issued notice on aSpecial Civil Application filed by the Federation of Self-Financed Schoolsagainst an order issued by the Collector and District Magistrate of Surat,stating that harassment of school students for non payment of fees is a grossviolation of Section 75 of the JJ Act.
In a writ petition filed before the High Court under Article226 of the Constitution, a man claiming to be a descendant of freedom fighterNamdev Nathu Mahajan has sought permission to commit Iccha Mrytyu i.e.,active euthanasia.
The Petitioner, 56 years of age, says he was working as adriver in the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation when he receivedinformation and documents regarding some corruption which was going on in thedepartment. This corruption was allegedly being carried on with the support ofhigh level officers of the department.
A Court in the Mehsana District of Gujarat sentenced GujaratIndependent MLA Jignesh Mevani and 9 others to 3 months of imprisonment whileholding them guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 143 IPC.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate J.A. Parmar noted thatall 10 were members of Mevani's Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch and when theywere asked to not go ahead with the processions, they disobeyed the orders ofthe executive magistrate, and therefore, the said assembly became an unlawfulassembly.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea hasbeen moved in the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction forfilling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,Ahmedabad in terms of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act,1993.
Hearing the matter on Thursday the bench of Chief JusticeAravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri issued the notice to the Centreand directed it to file a reply by June 10, 2022.
Case Title: bajaj finance ltd. Throughauthorised officer, aniket pareshbhai desai versus ld. District collector,navsari & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 154
Explaining that under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, thesecured creditor has the first claim over the sale proceeds of secured assetsand that the District Magistrate has to provide assistance under Section 14 tothe secured creditor to take possession of the asset, the Gujarat High Courthas quashed a communication which prohibited the Petitioner-bank fromproceedings against the borrower-company.
Case Title: Vijay Arvind Jariwala Versus UmangJatin Gandhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 155
"In the proceedings of section 11, a person who is nota party to the agreement, has no association in eye of law. On the samefooting, a third party cannot be a party in the proceedings under section 9 ofthe Act for interim measures wherein by very nature of the proceedings, thirdparty cannot be said to have a legal participatory right", the GujaratHigh Court has recently observed.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice SamirDavehas been hearing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996. The application was filed by one partner of apartnership firm (Blue Feathers Infracon) against the other wherein thePetitioner filed the interim application to implead a retired partner of thefirm and his wife as respondent parties.
Case Title: Godrej Agrovet Limited & 1Other(S) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
The Gujarat High Court has held that the sample analysisreport received from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) ofthe Insecticides Act, 1968 is a 'conclusive proof' of facts involved.
Section 24(4) makes provision for a sampel to be sent fortest or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, which shall file itsreport within 30 days, in writing, signed by or under the authority of theDirector of the Laboratory and the report shall be conclusive evidence of thefacts stated therein.
Case title - Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Versus State OfGujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 157
The High Court directed a woman whodeserted her husband under the influence of her family on the ground that hebelongs to a different sub casere, to pay Rs. 10,000/- to her husband.
"We find it extremely unfortunate that the educatedcouple needs to end the relationship in such a fashion just because there is astrong resistance on the part of the parents and taken in exert this kind ofinfluence," the Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhattremarked.
Case Title: Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 158
The High Court has quashed the detention order as there wasa bonafide mistake in the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type whilegenerating the e-way bill.
The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (asthen was) and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observedthat the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents, including theE-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved by a truck whoseregistration number was also correct. The only mistake in this case was theselection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-Way Bill.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Versus RelianceIndustries
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 159
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (asthen was) and Justice Nisha M. Thankore has held that methanolis not excisable as it is a result of a chemical reaction and not as a resultof any by-product.
The respondent-assessee, Reliance Industries, is in thebusiness of manufacturing excisable goods like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel,LPG etc. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has been availingcredit of duty paid on the input and capital goods and input services in termsof the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claim was madein respect of the CENVAT Credit Reversed or Paid under Rule 6(3) of the CENVATCredit Rules, 2004 for the period between April, 2015 and March, 2016 on theremoval of the LPG under the Domestic Subsidy Scheme
PoliceAtrocities| Gujarat High Court Urges State To Install CCTV Cameras, Follow DKBasu Guidelines
Case Title: Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai Versus State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 160
The High Court recently recommended that the Stategovernment take initiatives to implement the guidelines issued by the ApexCourt in the DK Basu v. State of West Bengal and to installCCTV cameras with night vision and maintain their records for 6 months to dealwith police atrocities in the region.
A Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and JusticeMauna Bhatt was hearing a habeas corpus petition involving aninter-religious couple when it came down heavily on the Gujarat police anddirected the concerned authorities to intimate all police stations about theguidelines issued in the Paramvir Singh Saini case.
Case Title: Harshad D Santoki S/O Devjibhai Versus StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 161
In a major relief to an Assistant Professor at theIndustrial Engineering Department of LE College, Morbi, the Gujarat High Courthas directed the respondent authorities to grant him an Academic Grade Pay(AGP) of Rs. 8,000 from 2010 onwards and consequential benefits of INR 9,000from 2013.
Justice Vaishnav noted that except for certainadverse remarks from 2009-10, there were no adverse remarks against thePetitioner in the 19 years of service that he had rendered. The issue ofunauthorised pay was an aspect of penalty even as the other remarks regardinghis ability to decisions or lack of initiative were not so grave so as todeprive him of the AGP. The High Court remarked:
"For these two purported adverse instances thefinancial loss that has occurred to the petitioner is denial of AGPsconsequentially based on the communication of 2019."
Case Title: Shree Vikas Co.Op. Bank ltd, (liq.)Through Sunil Laxmanrao Powle v. State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising JusticeAshutosh Shastri recently dismissed an application seekingcancellation of bail while noting that there was no violation of any bailconditions or misuse of liberty could be made out against the accused persons.
There were 20 FIRs registered against the Accused personsfor offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 114, 34 and120(B) of the IPC. The main accused person in these FIRs being theVice-Chairman of the Shree Vikas Cooperative Bank Limited ('Applicant Bank')was accused of having sanctioned different loans for his relatives withoutproper security even as the relatives failed to repay the loan with interest indue time.
Case Title: Nathiben Lalitbhai Vegada VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 163
"It is trite law that initiation of contemptproceedings is a serious step; same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.Unless there is a definite material and clear case made out, this Court wouldrefuse to exercise contempt jurisdiction", the Gujarat High Courthas held while dismissing a false application filed under Section 10 of theContempt of Courts Act by the applicant through her sister (minor).
The Applicant herein had approached the Court to initiatecontempt proceedings against the State authorities for the wilful anddeliberate disobedience of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Courtin DK Basu vs State of West Bengal for the alleged physicalabuse endured by her sister and herself.
It was averred that the an Activa vehicle belonging to theemployee of the Applicant's sister was detained by the traffic police. On thesubsequent payment of the fine, the sister reached the police station to takepossession of the vehicle along with the Applicant wherein the authoritiesdelivered blows on them resulting in serious injuries. After being admitted tothe hospital, the Applicant claimed that an FIR was lodged against them alongwith two other Accused persons for offences under Section 447, 379 and 114 ofthe IPC. The Applicant insisted that no theft or trespass was committed by her.
Case Title: Panchal Zalakben Hardikbhai D/OSanjaybhai Bhagubhai Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 164
Considering the well settled principle of paramount welfareof child, the Gujarat High Court recently exercised its extraordinary powersunder Section 226 of the Constitution and granted custody of the corpus, a 4old year boy, to his mother (Petitioner herein).
The child was said to be taken away from the mother by thechild's father, following a matrimonial dispute. After the judgment waspronounced in Petitioner's favour, the Bench comprising Justices SoniaGokani and Mauna M Bhatt noted the father's attempt to create anunruly atmosphere in the Court. Thus, it suspended his visitation rights for aperiod of six months.
"We allow this petition giving the custody of childto the mother. Let the same be handed-over peacefully to the mother...thefather would have visitation right...After the judgement was pronounced,respondent-father of the child tried to create unruly atmosphere in the Courtpremise leading to unmanageable situation for Campus Administration. Hisintimidating behaviour make us suspend the visitation rights for six monthsfrom today," the order stated.
Case Title: Leepee Enterprise versus Mehul Industries
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 165
The High Court has ruled that the issue ofjurisdiction of the Arbitrator ought to be raised at the first availableopportunity, i.e., when the notice under Section 11 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is served for appointment of Arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice A.G. Uraizee rejectedthe contention that the issue of jurisdiction being a legal issue can be raisedat any stage. The Court held that since the party had not raised the issue oflack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator by responding to the notice issued underSection 11 of the A&C Act nor had it participated in the arbitralproceedings to raise the said issue, the arbitral award could not be set asideon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Vijaybhai Punabhai Chavda Versus State OfGujarat & 13 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
Observing that no untoward incident has taken place sincethe persons accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989 were released on bail, the Gujarat High Court hasrefused to entertain an application preferred by the complainant forcancellation of bail.
Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed,
"Trial is already set on motion and the case hasalready been fixed on 20.6.2022, and further, there is no untoward incident hastaken place after June 2017 nor any case is made out of breach of any of theconditions of grant of bail, hence this Court is not inclined to exercisediscretion to cancel the bail which has been granted."
Case Title: Chief Project Manager Versus Firoz SahebDargah Through Trustee Shaikh Onali Ismailji Visawaarvala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
The High Court held that merely because a Dargah issituated in a railway land and not disturbed or removed because of its devoteesand followers, does not mean that the surrounding land of the Dargah becomesthe Dargah's property.
Observing thus, the Bench comprising Justice UmeshTrivedi set aside an order of the State Waqf Tribunal which grantedinjunction in favour of the Trustee of the concerned Dargah, halting theconstruction of railway line near the Dargah.
Case Title: Essar Steel Limited & 1 other(s)v State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 168
The High Court reiterates the legal position andhas allowed the civil application filed by Essar Steel Limited seekingdeclarations that the claims raised by the original espondent stand abated andextinguished in view of Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Coderead with the Resolution Plan and the judgement passed by the Supreme Courtin Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.
Case Title: Jitendrabhai Arjanbhai Roy VersusThe Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Rural Finance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 169
The Gujarat High court has reiterated that removal of aperson's name from the voters' list is not an "extraordinarycircumstance" warranting invocation of High Court's extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that a personaggrieved must avail statutory remedy by filing election petition under Rule28.
A Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav and JusticeSandeep Bhatt affirmed the following observations made by a singlejudge,
"Once the process of election has been set in motionthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interferein the election process. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interferewith the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 and relegate the writapplicant to avail statutory remedy by filing election petition under Rule 28.
The rejection of the writ-applicant's name from thevoters' list results in exclusion of name of the writ-applicant from thevoters' list...the writ-applicant can avail the benefit of provisions of Rule28 of the Rules by filing the election petition. The authority under Rule 28has wide power to cancel and, confirm and amend the election and also to directto hold fresh election in case the election is set aside and the remedy underRule 28 is an efficacious remedy."
Case Title: Axis Bank Limited vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 170
What came to be purchased by the writ-applicant in theauction proceedings conducted by the Bank of Baroda was a secured asset underthe provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In such circumstances, the State cannotclaim preference over the subject property for the purpose of recovery of thedues towards tax. It is not in dispute that the first charge was created infavour of the bank and the bank in exercise of its powers under the SARFAESIAct, put the subject property to auction", the Gujarat High Courthas observed.
Case Title: Virani Enterprise vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 171
Emphasizing on the importance of principles of naturaljustice in a "civilized society", the Gujarat High Court observed,
"the benefit of audi alteram partem principle waseven extended to Adam and Eve, even by God before they were punished fordisobeying His command. This signifies that even if the authority already knowseverything and the person has nothing more to tell, even then this rule ofnatural justice is attracted, unless application of this rule would be a mereempty formality."
Case Title: M/S S K Industries Through SajidIbrahim Memon Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 172
The High Court has endorsed the "expeditious andjudicious" disposal of case property so as to ensure that the owner suchseized property does not suffer unnecessary losses and the authorities are alsosaved from maintaining custody of such property.
Justice Ilesh Vora, while dealing with a caseinvolving 1,03,120 kilograms muddamla seized base oil worth Rs. 67,02,800observed,
"the expeditious and judicious disposal of the caseproperty would ensure that the owner of the article would not suffer because ofits remaining unused. Court or police would not require to keep the article insafe custody, as it would save the cost of storage etc."
Case Title: Vaishali Nishit Patel vs State OfGujaratVaishali Nishit Patel vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
The High Court permitted an American Citizen of Indianorigin, who had moved a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of her daughtersfrom her husband, to withdraw the plea while observing that every party has a"right" to withdraw the proceedings.
It however hoped, that since the matter involved two minorchildren, the parties will act in their best interest.
"While permitting withdrawal, which is the right ofevery party, this Court is of the opinion that to both the parties need to actin the best interest of their children and it is therefore desirable for themto attempt an amicable settlement," Justice Sonia Gokani andJustice Mauna Bhatt observed.
StatementOf Co-Accused Can't Be Sole Basis To Convict Any Person: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat vs AjaybhaiChampaklal Champaneri
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 174
The High Court has reiterated that Statement of theco-accused or admission of the co-accused cannot be proved in evidence againstthe maker of it and it cannot be sole base to convict any person.
It also observed that the provisions of Sections 24-26 ofthe Evidence Act 'clearly' restrict the acceptance of such confession that aremade or caused by inducement, threat, promise while referring to the chargeagainst Accused persons.
Case Title: The Ol Of M/S Neelnandan PolymersLimited (In Liqn) V/S Suresh Gopichand Keswani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 175
The High Court recently exonerated the Directors of aCompany, undergoing liquidation, over their failure to submit the Statement ofAffairs of the Company with the Official Liquidator within stipulated period of21 days from the date of winding up, under Section 454 of the Companies Act,1956.
Whereas the alleged delay in filing the statement was of 3years, Justice Bhargav Karia stated that However taking intoconsideration the prevailing condition of Covid -19 Pandemic in the year 2020and 2021, it can be said that the accused persons have committed default fornot filing Statement of Affairs for more than one year.
Case Title: Vivekkumar Kamalniranjan Kushwaha V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 176
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted bail to a man accusedunder Sections 306, 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act for abetting the suicide of his wife bydemanding dowry.
A Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi observedthat given the fragile mental state of the deceased person and the fact thatthe trial would take a long time to conclude, it was a fit case for exercisingdiscretion in favour of the Applicant.
Case Title: Jaydev Mulubhai Jaju vs State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 177
The High Court has permitted a person claiming to be fromthe Scheduled Tribe community, to be provisionally appointed to the post ofSales Tax Inspector Class III, pending scrutiny of the caste certificateproduced by him.
Justice Biren Vaishnav directed that such anappointment will be subjected to the result of the Scrutiny Committee. If thecertificate produced by the Petitioner is proved to be disingenuous, thePetitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of being in provisionalservice. Per contra, if the certificate of the Petitioner is found to begenuine, it will be open for the Petitioner to claim his actual appointmentalong with continuity of service and other benefits.
Case Title: Hardasbhai Raymalbhai Gohil vs SanjaybhaiArvindbhai Jabuani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 178
The High Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalto consider the claim petition filed by a motor accident victim, even thoughthere was a delay of about 1 month in reporting the matter to the Police.
The direction was passed in a First Appeal filed underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 challenging dismissal of the claimpetition. Attention was drawn to the fact that the victim herein was earningINR 1,50,000 from his agricultural work and therefore the claimants wereentitled to get compensation worth INR 11,00,000.
Case Title: Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi V/SState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 179
While opining that it is a matter of shame for a lawyer tobe involved in serious offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust andcriminal intimidation, the Gujarat High Court has refused bail to the Applicantwho had allegedly eloped for 3 years with a huge amount of money during the executionof a sale deed.
The Bench comprising Justice Niral R Mehta observed,
"applicant being a lawyer by profession, is oftenlyinvolved in the offence serious in nature which itself is a matter of shame.The profession of a lawyer is a noble profession, as it has direct nexus withpious stream of justice which at any cost shall not be allowed to be polluted.It is highly unexpected from a lawyer to have indulged in such an offence notonce, but several times in past. Though some offences are settled, but the factremains that the offences took place at the instance of the applicant. Thus,the conduct of the applicant seems to be not befitting to the standard of theprofession."
Case Title: Madrasa-E-Anware Rabbani WaqfCommittee V/S Surat Municipal Corporation
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 180
The High Court refused to interfere with an order passed bythe Executive Engineer of the Surat Municipal Corporation, directing removal ofan alleged "Madrassa" said to be constructed on a government land, onthe ground that the construction was without prior permission of the competentauthority.
"In the opinion of the Court, in absence of anyevidence on record regarding actual running of educational institution andthere is nothing on record to indicate any permission to running educationalinstitution or building permission to put up construction of educationalinstitution and the factual assertion not being controverted that the premiseswere being used for commercial purpose, the Court is not inclined to interferewith the ongoing process, which according to the Court is in accordance withthe provisions of GDCR," Justice AY Kogje said.
Case Title: Rajendrakumar Manilal Jaiswal V/SState Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 181
While quashing the FIR registered against the Applicant foroffences under Sections-66(1)b, 65AE, 116(2), 81, 98 and 99 of the GujaratProhibition Act, the High Court has held that it is not open for theInvestigating Officer to rely upon other material which was not a part of thechargesheet to allege that the Applicant was involved in the crime in inquestion.
The Applicant had challenged the FIR since initially he wasnot named in the FIR but after the investigation his name was included in thecharge sheet basis the statements of the co-accused. It was also mentioned inthe chargesheet that the Applicant was the principal purchaser of prohibitedgoods despite there being no material to support the allegations. There wasalso no evidence that the Applicant had piloted the truck with prohibitedgoods.
Case Title: National Insurance Co Ltd V/S RajeenRafiqahmed Vohra & 4 Other(S)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 182
Stating that the Insurance Company had unnecessarily filedan appeal for challenging a small compensation amount in a motor vehiclesaccident claim, Justice Sandeep Bhatt has affirmed the awardof INR 65, 200 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and dismissed theappeal of the Insurance Company.
The brief facts of the case were that the Claimant(Respondent No. 1) was riding in a rash and negligent manner on a motorcyclewith the Opponent No. 2 as a pillion rider when the Opponent No. 4 driving a tempohit the motorcycle because of excessive speed. This caused serious injuries andfracture to the Claimant. The claim petition was filed to gain compensationworth INR 3 lakhs. However, noting the involvement and liabilities of bothparties and the disability claims, the Tribunal declared a compensation of INR65,200 with 7.5% interest for the Claimant.
Case Title: Amitkumar Babubhai Katara V/S TheState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 183
Opining that there is sufficient evidence to form a primafacie view that the Congress Leader Amit Katara hatched a criminal conspiracyto murder BJP councillor Hiren Patel amid political rivalry, the Gujarat HighCourt has rejected his bail plea for alleged offences under Sections 302, 303read with Sections 120(b) and 201 of IPC.
The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora observed,
"The Court should not go into merits of the case byappreciation of the evidence. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances ofthe present case, it appears that the applicant was dominating over themunicipality affairs as his wife was President and the whole body wasrepresenting one party. In this context, when deceased had managed to win overthe councilors of the ruling party, naturally, the issue of ruling ofmunicipality would arise. At this stage, considering the material collectedduring the course of investigation, it cannot be said that there is no evidenceconnecting the applicant herein in the alleged offence. It is alleged that, theapplicant conspired to kill the deceased for which, he agreed to finance also."
Case Title: Sumesh Engineers Private Limited V/SMadhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 184
The Gujarat High Court has recently observed that normally,Courts would be loath to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cutcase of arbitrariness or malafides or bias or irrationality is made out.
A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and JusticeAshutosh Shastri observed that needless interference in commercialmatters can cause havoc and hence, the Courts must realize their limitations insuch matters.
"But, at the same time, it is also the propositionof law that Constitutional Court being the guardian of the fundamental rights,is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality,malafides and bias and as such, a duty is cast upon the Court in suchcircumstances that whenever any specific arbitrariness or irrationality isvisible in public interest, Court can exercise powers of judicial review,"it added.
Case Title: yamuna cables accessories pvt. Ltd.V/s desai enterprise
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 185
The High Court permitted a party in appeal under the Micro,Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to make a pre-deposit toCourt in terms of Section 19 of the Act, i.e., 75% of the amount awarded, ininstallments.
The Petitioner herein was aggrieved by an order ofAdditional District Judge, whereby its application for extension of time todeposit the 75% of the award amount was rejected.
GujaratHC Affirms Regularisation Of Sweeper Working Around 8 Hours A Day For Over 30Years
Case Title : State Of Gujarat V Saurashtra MajurMahajan Sangh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 186
Justice Biren Vaishnav affirmed the order of theIndustrial Tribunal which directed the Petitioner-State authorities toregularise the position of a sweeper who had been working for over four hourseveryday for the past thirty years. The Tribunal had directed that the Statealso remit all the arrears from the date of reinstatement given the length ofthe worker's tenure.
Case Title: Subhashchandra Sanatan MallikThrough Babita Subhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
The Gujarat High Court while allowing the petition againstthe order of detention of the Petitioner has held that offences under Section27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 30 and 35 of the Gujarat MedicalPractitioner Act by itself cannot bring the detenu within the fold of theGujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
Case Title: Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi VersusState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that the AssistantDirector of Information (Journalism) Class II Recruitment Rules, 2015 nowherestipulate that Journalism experience necessarily has to be from a governmentorganization for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Information(Journalism) Class II.
"Nowhere does Recruitment Rule stipulate that it hasto be in only a government or local body or a government undertaking board orthe Corporation or a Company. This would amount to restrictive reading of theRule and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 does notpossess the requisite experience," Justice Biren Vaishnav observed.
Case Title: Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara VersusState Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Ensuring that no discrimination is borne by Multi-PurposeHealth Workers (Male), the High Court held that they shall be entitled toregular pay scale from their original date of appointment and consequentialbenefits which were paid to similarly situated employees way back in the year2011 and 2016.
Justice Biren Vaishnav referred to previousorders of the High Court by wherein Multi-Purpose Health Workers wereregularised while observing:
"Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have workedcontinuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse orthe other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners bytreating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for whichthey were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break,they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cutfinding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special CivilApplication No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in theseproceedings."
Case Title: Symphony Limited Versus Raj CoolingSystem Private Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
The High Court passed a consent decree in terms of asettlement arrived between renowned Symphony coolers and Raj Cooling System PvtLtd in connection with a suit for permanent injunction instituted under theDesigns Act, 2000.
The suit was filed by Symphony Ltd. alleging infringement ofthe Designs Act by the Respondent company, alleging that the latter has beenselling their product of air cooler having model name ALLWYN AC201 and ALLWYNAC203, whose is similar to Symphony's design vide registration no. 288184.
Case Title: Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/SAgriculture Produce Market Committee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
The High Court held that the provisions of the LimitationAct, 1963 do not apply to contempt proceedings. In this light, it refused toentertain a contempt petition filed with a delay of over 1 year.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar andJustice Ashutosh Shastri noted that as per Section 20 of the Contemptof Courts Act, proceedings for contempt cannot be initiated by a Court, eitheron its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year fromthe date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed
GujaratHigh Court Grants Bail To 16-Yr-Old Accused Of Committing Unnatural Sex With13-Yr-Old
Case Title: Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai VaghelaThrough Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a 16 years old boy,accused of forcibly committing unnatural sex (sodomy) with a minor boy, agedabout 13 years.
Keeping in view Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, aBench of Justice Samir Dave granted bail to the accused whilerestraining him from entering the society where the alleged victim resides. Indoing so, the Bench allowed the criminal revision application filed underSection 102 of the JJ Act to quash the order passed by the Sessions Court andthe JJ Board, refusing bail.
Case Title: Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O ChiragPrabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
While emphasizing on the paramount welfare of children incustody matters and observing that young children need love and warmth of boththe parents, the Gujarat High Court recently directed the District LegalService Authority to attempt conciliation between an estranged couple.
"We would also request the Chairperson, RajkotDistrict Legal Service Authority to also attempt to bring about the permanentsolution between the parties, as according to us, such solution will be quitebeneficial. After once the Chairperson undertakes this exercise and if he findsthe need for continuity of the process, he will be at liberty to relegate theparties to professional counselors or anyone he deems appropriate," abench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice MaunaBhatt ordered.
Case Title: Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State OfGujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
The High Court reiterated that when a government servant isaccused of a criminal offence, there has to be a reasonable connection betweenthe act concerned and the performance of his official duty for him to claimthat there is need of sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC.
Holding thus, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel dismissed theapplications filed by members of the Police Force, challenging an order passedby the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint against them and issuingprocess under Section 204 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections325, 323 and 114 of IPC.
Case title - Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus HighCourt Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Citing the limited scope of judicial review with Courts tointerfere with stipulations in recruitment advertisements which is theexclusive domain of the executive authority, the Gujarat High Court hasdismissed the petition filed by a Civil Judge from Rajasthan seeking theappointment to the post of Civil Judge in Gujarat.
GujaratHigh Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered againstformer Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for allegedassault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, itis too early to opine on his innocence.
"If the allegations found to be true, it is a veryserious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocateis expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, atthis stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and theInvestigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory dutiesunder the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," JusticeSamir Dave said.
Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/SState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within aperiod of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved inillegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat MineralRules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable torelease the seized material.
The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati reliedon Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench hadheld that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, theaction of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.
Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/SGandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, apharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not ownor exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found thetermination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused tointerfere with his retrenchment.
Significantly, the Bench comprising JusticeAniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amountsas legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Benchrefused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal.
Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction PrivateLimited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporationto rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a RoadContractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant withprinciples of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor inrelation to three work orders.
However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice JusticeAravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made itclear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing thefinal order in the matter.
"Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 hasbeen set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend thatrespondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench whilesetting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to theCorporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to relyupon their own earlier order, it is for them to justify it while passing thefinal order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity tointerfere at this juncture."
GujaratHigh Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order
Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
The High Court bench of JusticeJ.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speakingand vague.
The writ applicant/assessee is registered under the GujaratGoods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued by the StateTax Officer on Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 readwith Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vsState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
The High Court granted bail to an accused under the NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours ofbail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercialquantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accusedof offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be releasedon bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds forbelieving that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offencewhile on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar forgrant of bail under the provision.
Case Title : Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
The High Court held that a reserved category meritoriouscandidate should be allowed to merge in the class of unreserved categorybecause of his own merits, as depriving such candidate from securing a birth inthe unreserved category results into communally dividing a homogeneous class ofmeritorious candidates.
In this case, an advertisement for the post ofSub-Inspector, Class III was issued by the Recruitment Board inviting onlineapplications for a total of 1,382 posts to be filled in. The petitioners arecandidates who took the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for themain examination.
Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Airports Authority of India, R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 26 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
The High Court held that a party cannotcircumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.
The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanismprovided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the disputebefore the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made tothe validity of terms of the clause
The Court held that a party cannot circumvent the disputeresolution process provided under the agreement after agreeing on the same withopen eyes unless a challenge is made to the validity of such a clause.
Case Title : Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v.State of Gujarat| C/SCA/7676/2017| 10 June 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Justice Bhargav D. Karia of the High Court hasheld that in case of voluntary retirement from service, if the appointingauthority does not permit or refuse to grant the permission for retirementbefore the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirementshall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
In this case, the petitioner was appointed for the post ofDeputy Engineer at Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in 1992. He serveda notice for voluntary retirement in 2013 upon the University on completion of20 years of qualifying service. In the said letter the petitioner stated thatthe petitioner would retire voluntarily w.e.f. 06.01.2014. TheRespondent-University did not issue any intimation with regard to any orderrejecting or accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It is thecase of the petitioner that as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 06.01.2014on expiry of the three months' notice period.
Case Title: Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s IndianOil Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
Opining that the scope of judicial review in contractualmatters, particularly which require technical know-how is limited, the HighCourt refused to interfere with the order passed by the Dispute ResolutionPanel where the Petitioner's challenge to the show cause notices issued byIndian Oil Corporation were dismissed.
Case Title: krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodaraurban development authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
The High Court dismissed a petition seeking a declarationthat Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) was legally not entitled todemand betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc. atthe time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme.
Case Title: Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank OfIndia & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank OfIndia & 1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
The High Court came to the rescue of a retired BranchManager, accused by the employer-bank of causing it monetary loss byhaphazardly sanctioning loans, and ordered the latter to clear the former'sretiral dues.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the orderforfeiting the Respondent-employee's gratuity was an "afterthought"as the same was issued only after the penalty of dismissal was modified tocompulsory retirement and after the respondent approached the bank seeking paymentof gratuity.
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed Versus State OfGujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
The former ASG at Gujarat High Court, IH Syed was grantedanticipatory bail by a bench consisting of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel ofthe Gujarat High Court. The court found that the accused was not obliged tomake out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail and even though theCourt's power of granting anticipatory bail was not ordinary, its use was notconfined to exceptional cases alone.
Case Title: Soni Anilkumar Prahladbhai V/S StateOf Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
The Gujarat High Court has held that an accused person canbe competent witness, provided there is a written permission or there is awritten request made to the concerned court at the instance of accused underSection 315 CrPC.
It thus dismissed the petition challenging the order of theSessions Court which rejected the Petitioner's application for being treated asa witness, in the absence of a written request.
Case Title : Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani VersusState Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising JusticesVipul M. Pancholi and Rajendra M. Sareen has held that custody of aminor with his maternal grandparents could not be considered illegal custody orillegal confinement, given that the husband/ the father of the minor hadremarried during subsistence of his marriage with his first wife, who was themother of the said minor.
This petition was filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to direct the police authority to produce thecorpus (Samir, a minor aged 9 years) and handover his custody to the petitioner(the father). The respondent in this case are maternal grandparents of thecorpus.
