Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196 Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197 Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198 Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199 Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200 Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201 Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202 Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203 Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204 Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205 krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority 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 JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196 The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for alleged assault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, it is too early to opine on his innocence. "If the allegations found to be true, it is a very serious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocate is expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and the Investigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory duties under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," Justice Samir Dave said. Illegal Mining | 45 Days Period To Register FIR From Date Of Seizing Machinery Under Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 Is Mandatory: High Court Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197 The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material. The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal. Employer's Business Shut, Terminated Employee Encashed Compensation & Other Terminal Benefits: Gujarat High Court Declines Challenge To Retrenchment Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198 Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not own or exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found the termination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused to interfere with his retrenchment. Significantly, the Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Bench refused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal. Municipal Authority Can Rely On Previous Blacklisting Resolution Which Is Set Aside By Court, Must Justify It In Final Order: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199 The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a Road Contractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant with principles of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor in relation to three work orders. However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made it clear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing the final order in the matter. "Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 has been set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend that respondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to the Corporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to rely ...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags