Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXSwaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 144 Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145 Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vs Commissioner Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 146 State Of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Titabhai Baraiya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 147 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 148 Shiv Garment Through Sole Prop. Rameshchandra Gigaji Maurya v. Suryaben Kantilal Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 149 Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 150 Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai Kuniya Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 151 Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 152 Vijay Arvind Jariwala v. Umang Jatin Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 153Orders/Judgments of the Week 'Child's Welfare Paramount': Gujarat High Court Grants Custody Of 5-Yr Old Orphan To Maternal Aunt Over Paternal Grandparents Case Title: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 144 The High Court granted custody of a 5 years old child, whose parents had passed away during Covid-19 pandemic, to his maternal aunt, over the claim made by his paternal grandparents. The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt observed, "The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statues govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child." Reassessment Should Only Be Done By Officer Or His Successor And Not By Any Officer Of The Same Rank : Gujarat High Court Case Title: Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 145 The High Court bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Saraen, while invalidating the reassessment initiated by the DRI, held that the officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment. The petitioner/assessee is a private limited company and is in the business of trading and manufacturing goods like inkjet printers, laser printers, and parts as well as accessories for printers. The petitioner has been importing goods like Continuous Inkjet Printers (CIJ Printers), Laser Marking Machines, parts and accessories for CIJ Printers, and other such goods from foreign countries. They are being imported from China during the period from 2014 to 2021. Mere Registration Of FIRs By Itself Can't Have Nexus With Breach Of "Public Order": Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Case Title: Azaz S/O Ahmed Ibrahim Ishabhai vs Commissioner 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/s against an accused person does not mean he is a threat to the society or disturbs all social apparatus. A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed, "Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order...no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985." High Court Directs State To Positively Consider Service Regularization Of Asst Engineer Appointed In Aftermath Of '2001 Gujarat Earthquake' Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ARJANBHAI TITABHAI BARAIYA Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 147 Affirming the view that regularly selected employees cannot be continued for long on contractual, adhoc or temporary basis and that they ought to be regularised, the High Court came to the rescue of an Assistant Engineer who was appointed in the aftermath of 2001 Gujarat Earthquake. A Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak upheld the order of a single judge directing the Revenue Department and Urban Development & Urban Housing Department of the State Government to "positively consider" the request for regularisation. Income Tax Not Applicable On Interest Awarded By The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chief 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 the interest awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) under section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ applicant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is an insurance company. One Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed in the City Civil Court of...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags