Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up [7 February - 13 February 2022]

1. Encroachment Over Public Land Can't Be Retained Citing Right To Shelter: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan vs State Of GujaratCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 26While dismissing a PIL seeking to restrain the Railway authority from evicting slum dwellers until rehabilitation, the Gujarat High Court has held that the right to shelter is not a ground to continue encroachment on a public land. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri recalled the observations made by a previous Bench in this regard: "The debate as regards the rights of encroachers over public land vis a vis the right to shelter should come to an end. The right to shelter and encroachment are two different facet. An encroacher may save himself from being forcibly evicted only if during his period of stay over the encroached public land any enforceable legal right has crystallized in his favour. Otherwise, merely by asserting the Right to Shelter , an encroacher, over public land, cannot say that he cannot be evicted."2. Judicial Interference Necessary When Principles Of Natural Justice Are Ignored In Determining Citizenship: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai v. State Of GujaratCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 27While inquiring into a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the Petitioner seeking the release of her son from Special Operational Group, the Gujarat High Court has remarked, "the least that is expected of the person who has been given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of a person on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned."This observation was made in reference to the wide powers that the Central Government is vested with to inquire into the nationality of a person and deport the person if not found to be an Indian national.3. Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage Is Not Proper: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs Chhaganbhai ShambhubhaiCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the 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 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."4. Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 25 Evidence Act Inadmissible In Court But Significant For Investigation: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Case Title: Firoz Hajibhai Sodha vs State Of GujaratCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 29The statement by a co-accused under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act can be treated as a clue or piece of information for initiating and conducting an investigation to find out whether there is any independent and satisfactory material for further investigation, the Gujarat Court has clarified. The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi made this observation while hearing an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR for charges under sections 65(e), 116B, 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. 5. Offense Under Section 138 Of NI Act Maintaianable Only For Cheques Issued For 'Enforceable Debt' And Not 'Security': Gujarat High Court Case Title: C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of GujaratCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 30"It is a settled proposition of law that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would lie only in respect of any 'enforceable debt'", the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi made this observation in connection with an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the CJM Rajkot for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.6. Gujarat High Court Grants Joint Custody Of Differently Abled Corpus To His Father & Major Daughter Case Title: Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of GujaratCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 31In a peculiar case, where the corpus lost his memory up to 95% and his wife died by committing suicide, the Gujarat High Court has permitted the corpus' major daughter and his father to share joint custody of the corpus.The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt further directed that once the second daughter of the corpus becomes a major, she will also have joint custody of the corpus and if, by then the corpus has completely cured and medically released, they can continue to look after him.7. Depletion Of Sex Ratio Resulting Into More And More 'Exchange Marriages': Gujarat High CourtCase title - SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARATCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 32The Gujarat High Court has observed...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up [7 February - 13 February 2022]

Shrutika Pandey

Tags