Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: September 12 To September 18, 2022

Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378

M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s Competition Commission of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379

Inner Vision Education And Charitable Trust V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380

Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381

Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382

Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383

Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/S Jaydeepsinh K Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384

Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385

Judgments/Orders of the week

Offences Alleged Under Damage To Public Property Act Over Agitation Against Drainage Issues Not Act Of "Organized Crime Syndicate": Gujarat HC

Case Title: Ahemadmiya Bahauddinmiya Saiyad V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 378

The Gujarat High Court has held that the Applicant-Accused's participation in an agitation against the Municipality for certain drainage issues and the alleged offence committed by him u/s 3 of the Damage to Public Property Act, cannot be deemed to be an act of organised crime syndicate.

Competition Act | Order Of Inquiry U/S 26 Does Not Affect Parties' Rights, Opportunity Of Hearing Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/S. Shree Shivam Corporation Through Its Sole Propeirtor Mr. Prahlad Durlabhjibhai Joshi v/s Competition Commission of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 379

The Gujarat High Court has held that an order of inquiry under Section 26 of the Competition Act is only a prima facie opinion and does not affect the rights of any person. Thus, it held that such an order cannot be reviewed by the High Court unless and until it is shown that it is contrary to the provisions of the Act or the order has included irrelevant material or not included relevant material.

Justice AP Thaker further held that at the stage of passing any order for inquiry, no right of the person concerned is breached and such person cannot claim as of right of being hearing be provided to him at that stage.

Application For Opening Of New Medical College Must Be Accompanied By Consent Of Affiliation & NOC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Inner Vision Education And Charitable Trust V/S Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 380

The Gujarat High Court has held that a 'No Objection Certificate' as well as Consent of Affiliation are mandatory at the time of making an application under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 in order for a Trust to open a new Medical College. Justice Aniruddha Mayee stated:

"Therefore, the submission of No Objection Certificate as well as Consent of Affiliation was mandatory as per the list of enclosures and the applicant had to submit the same along with the application form. Admittedly in the present case at the time of submitting the application on the last date of submission i.e. 31.10.2021, the petitioners herein have not submitted the said two documents."

ITR Prior To Death Of Assessee Is The Basis For Computation Of Loss Of Future Income Including Future Prospects: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Sonalben Alias Charmiben Hirenbhai Jivani Versus Naranbhai Chananbhai Babariya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 381

The Gujarat High Court has held that an income tax return (ITR) filed prior to the death of the assessee is the basis for computation of loss of future income, including future prospects.

The single bench of Justice Gita Gopi has observed that both the parents are dependents of the deceased son and are entitled to apply for compensation. Both the parents are entitled to the compensation amount under the head of dependency loss.

Not Necessary For All Tenants In Joint Tenancy To Find Alternate Accommodation For Landlord To Recover Possession U/S 13 Bombay Rents Act: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka V/S Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382

The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not necessary under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 that all joint tenants must find alternative accommodation so that landlord can recover possession of rented premises.

Justice AS Supehia observed,

"The landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, after coming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence and an eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. If these persons become tenants in common or joint tenants, it is not the requirement of the law that all the tenants should have built accommodation for their residence."

Employees Can't Withdraw From Voluntary Retirement Scheme After Stipulated Deadline Or Acceptance Of Benefits: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh V/S Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 383

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated the position of law that once the employees have accepted the benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it is not open for the employees to challenge the scheme.

They can also not contend after having withdrawn the amount, that they should be permitted to continue with their employment services, it added.

Reiterating this principle, Justice Biren Vaishnav declined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court wherein the Court had found that the employees had withdrawn their applications for VRS after their applications were accepted by the employer and the amounts were paid to them.

Complaint Already Filed Against Police Officer: Gujarat High Court Declines Contempt Action Over Failure To Register Rape FIR

Case Title: Anjaliben Prakashbhai Trivedi V/S Jaydeepsinh K Rathod

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384

The Gujarat High Court declined to entertain a contempt petition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with the Apex Court's decision in Lalita Kumar v/s State of UP, for prompt registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence.

A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed:

"Having found a substantive compliant has been lodged not only against the respondent, but also against the Police Officer who was incharge and one another co-accused and as such, it appears that the grievance of the applicant is taken care of by initiating steps by filing substantive complaint and as such, the applicant has not remained remediless."

Copyright Act | No Infringement U/S 51 If Person Holds Certificate By Registrar Or License By Owner: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 385

The Gujarat High Court has explained that when a person uses without the permission of the license owner or the Registrar, any product, it amounts to an infringement of copyright as under Section 51 of the Act. However, when the person is holding a certificate issued by the Registrar of Copyright, no infringement is committed.

The Bench comprising Justice Niral Mehta was hearing an application challenging the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2. It was averred that the FIR was an 'abuse of process of law' and filed with a view to oust the Applicant from the business. Further, u/s 51, if any person without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar does anything, it would amount to a infringement. However, in the instant case, the Applicant had been issued certificates by the Registrar of Copyright and therefore, according to him, there was no infringement. Additionally, the police officers had invoked Section 64 of the Copyright Act to seize the material in question. Per the Applicant, this was a 'sheer non-application of mind.'