1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bharatbhai Ramsingbhai Solanki, 10-09-2018
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - deceased was 30 years old and a selfemployed - claimants would be entitled to increase in income as prospective income to the tune of 40%.
2. Aashaben v. State of Gujarat, 10-09-2018
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Powers are always coupled with a conscious duty not to act arbitrarily or unreasonably.
3. Reenaben Yogeshbhai Ghansi v. State of Gujarat, 10-09-2018
Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (Gujarat) - Ss. 2(b) & 3(2) - Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act.
4. Nirajbhai Pravinchandra Aastik v. State of Gujarat, 10-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 420(B) & 114 - the property in question was mortgaged by the applicants with the bank and had availed the loan to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/- and the said amount was not repaid by the applicants and also, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the complainant after receiving the huge amount from the complainant. This aspect has been suppressed by the applicants at the time of executing the agreement to sell. It is also pertinent to note that the second property, which was handed over to the complainant for temporary residence, was also mortgaged with the bank. Thus, in my opinion, the widow had lost her entire saving and therefore, it is not a case of granting anticipatory bail.
5. Rohitkumar Dhirubhai Vaghasia v. State of Gujarat, 10-09-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 465, 468, 471, 120(B) & 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Investigation is almost over - Application is allowed - Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of Police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
6. Dharubhai Vasanbhai Bariya v. State of Gujarat, 07-09-2018
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Release of the Vehicle involved in the case - hundreds and thousands of such vehicles are lying either in the compound of the concerned police stations or the said vehicles are being kept in an open ground which might have been hired for keeping such vehicles and therefore, such vehicles remained idle/unutilized and by passage of time, the value of the vehicles is being diminished. This Court has also noticed that in view of the backlog of such cases, the Magistrate Courts are not equipped with the machinery so as to complete with the trial and hearing within time bound schedule but usually, such sort of cases required minimum 4 to 5 years in disposal of such cases and therefore, if the vehicles are kept in that manner in an open place for about 4 to 5 years, then naturally, the condition of the vehicle would be deteriorated and would render useless for the purpose and thereafter even if it may be confiscated, then also, it would not fetch any value which might have been indicated in the seizure memo and ultimately, it would be a loss to the public exchequer.
7. Musa Sabbir Bahera v. State of Gujarat, 07-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 457, 380, 114 - Regular Bail - during the course of the trial it was found by the trial Court that the applicant had remained absent, as a result, pending the trial, an arrest warrant came to be issued - advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant cannot remain present before the Court at the relevant point of time as there was a communication gap and that the applicant was very much in town and available but on account of miscommunication he did not remain present before the trial Court - advocate for the applicant assures that hence forth applicant would remain present for the trial and ready to file undertaking to this effect in the trial Court - Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant -this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
8. Ranabhai Lakhmanbhai Bati v. District Panchayat, 06-09-2018
Due process of law - Meaning and kinds of - Due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an opportunity for the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court.
9. Ranabhai Lakhmanbhai Bati v. District Panchayat, 06-09-2018
Succession Certificate - if the plaintiff has obtained a succession certificate, then he can succeed to the personal property of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act on the basis of the succession certificate. He cannot claim any right, title or interest on the land owned by the Government. If there is any self acquired or coparcenary property of the deceased Alsur Vajsur, then, probably, the plaintiff can succeed over the same on the basis of the succession certificate.
10. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shantilal Babubhai, 06-09-2018
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - though the Insurance Company can be exonerated from making payment of penalty awarded by the Commissioner, the Insurance Company has to pay the amount of interest, which is awarded only because of pendency of application for compensation before the competent authority.
11. Vidyaben Balkishan Raval Vs. Vishnubhai Gopalbhai Ka.Patel, 06-09-2018
Motor Accident Claim - In case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years - deceased was working as a driver on an Ambassador car - So additional 40% income of the deceased is required to be added towards the actual income.
12. Tejuben Dansinh Thakor v. Nashimkhan Isanalikhan, 06-09-2018
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
13. Vikesh Kapil v. M.T. Saint Regis (Imo No. 9495272), 05-09-2018
Maritime Law - Owners of the Vessel have failed to pay the salaries - The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Deendayal are directed to arrest the vessel M. T. Saint Regis at present lying at Deendayal Port within the territorial waters of India and to keep the vessel under arrest until further orders of this Court. It is further ordered that the Port Officer and the Customs Officer at Deendayal shall render all assistance to the plaintiff or its representative in effecting the warrant of arrest on the Defendant vessel and providing provisions etc. to the crews on board the Defendant Vessel. It is open for the plaintiff's advocate to communicate the above order by fax message/Email at their own cost and the authorities are directed to act on fax/Email message with an ordinary copy of this order.
14. Akshay Alia Bhuriyo Rashikbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Police of City of Ahmedabad, 05-09-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 394, 324, 435, 385, 294(B), 506(1) & 114 - Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 - Ss. 2(c) & 3(2) - the detaining authority has failed to substantiate that the alleged antisocial activities of the detenu affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It is true that there is a very thin line between the question of law and order situation and a public order situation, and some times, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation can turn into a question of public order situation. What is decisive for determining the connection of ground of detention with the maintenance of public order, the object of detention, is not an intrinsic quality of the act but rather its latent potentiality. Therefore, for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the purposes of public order or not, merely an objective test based on the intrinsic quality of an act would not be a safe guide. The potentiality of the act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior. Just because one case has been registered against the detenu of the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and two incamera statements have been recorded of the witnesses whose identity has not been disclosed, by itself do not have any bearing on the maintenance of the public order. The detenu may be punished for the offence which has been registered against him but, surely, the acts constituting the offence cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community. Thus, in the overall view of the matter, the detention of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and the order of detention deserves to be quashed and set aside.
15. Bengani Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. Authorised Officer, Small Industries Development Bank (Sidbi), 05-09-2018
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 - even if, no objection is raised for and on behalf of either of the parties, if the law is very settled and clear, the Court is expected to apply the correct law to the situation. This being the financial matter, the grant of any interim order would be injurious to the other side for having involved public money at the tax-payers expenses. This Court is, therefore, required to be extremely slow in exercise of its discretion to grant stay in the matter, particularly, in a matter under the Securitization Act.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 - Alternative Remedy - In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies / institutions which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. It also has held that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, however, when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would normally and ordinarily not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a routine manner. The disputes of the petitioner company inter se or with the third party, who claims to be the partner, could hardly be a ground for stopping recovery of outstanding dues of the Bank. Even if the Civil Suit in that regard as well as criminal proceedings qua the third party are pending, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent bank who has otherwise followed the legal procedures and has availed the legal remedy against the borrower and others, is entitled to proceed. Ground of non- inclusion of certain amount can always be raised before the DRT as is the case of the petitioner and that aspect also does not fall under any of the exceptions, which otherwise is carved out for this court to invoke the writ jurisdiction, particularly, in wake of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy as discussed, herein above. In wake of the availability of the alternative, efficacious remedy to the petitioner, this petition is not being entertained and is dismissed.
16. Dhankesh v. State of Gujarat, 05-09-2018
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Ss. 3(1)(r)(s), 14(A) & 18 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 504, 506(2) & 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 438 - Anticipatory Bail.
17. Nasarullakhkhan A. Pathan v. Inferior Services Selection Board, 05-09-2018
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compassionate Appointment - the policy which was prevailing at the time of death of an employee will be applicable as far as compassionate appointment is concerned.
18. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Gujarat Security Guard Services, 05-09-2018
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 33 and 34 - Correction and interpretation of award; additional award - even after passing the award by the arbitral tribunal, recourse is available to the parties to the award to approach the Arbitrator for correction of the award or for correction of errors and also for the purpose of interpretation of a specific point in the award or part of the award. The arbitral tribunal is empowered to entertain such request and give its interpretation as per sub-section (2) of Section 33. Sub-section (4) of Section 33 says that request can be made by party unless otherwise agreed by the parties for making additional arbitral award in respect of the claims presented before the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award. Therefore, it is permissible to approach the arbitral tribunal for correction, clarification, interpretation, and also if there is a case for making additional award.
19. Ramanbhai Bhagubhaiv. Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai Shantaben, 05-09-2018
Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - The Regulation 13(4) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulation provides that for the purpose of making an order under sub-regulation (3), the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to call for the records and proceedings relating to the appeal or application under consideration, or any other papers or documents, from the Collector or any authority concerned. Thus, in the present case, when the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Application at preliminary stage, it was the duty of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the Court below so that it can ascertain the case, as the Tribunal was finally deciding the rights of the parties. In the present case, even though it was an obligatory duty on the part of the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings from the authority below if the Tribunal wanted to decide the Revision Application at preliminary stage, the petitioners made an application dated 04.01.2012 before the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to call for the records and proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2011, in spite of that, the Tribunal has not called for the records and proceedings from the authority below and simply dismissed the Revision Application at the preliminary stage without calling and examining the records and proceedings and also without referring the documents produced by the petitioners along with the Revision Application. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not calling for the records and proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal has committed a breach of aforesaid regulations and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and it is unjust and nonest and therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
20. Saeedul @ Munna Muchad Masheear Rehman Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, 05-09-2018
Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 - Ss. 3(2) - The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not over lap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
21. State of Gujarat v. Valibhai Jamalbhai Halari, 05-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 384, 120 B and 34 -Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1) and 27(3) - Gujarat Police Act - Section 135 - Law of cancellation of bail - Respondent is a habitual offender who has with impunity exercised his muscle power and has succeeded in overreaching the process of law. His act of emboldenment also is likely to thwart the course of justice. When sessions trial is to proceed his conduct would have a far greater possibility of polluting the stream of justice. While upholding the plea of the State of cancelling his bail and directing him to immediately surrender in the judicial custody, the Investigating Officer is also directed to provide witness protection to all the vital witnesses and particularly to the family members of the deceased and his close friends who according to the prosecution papers are the eye witnesses to the incident and also have witnessed earlier meetings with this respondent as also the giving of the threats on a consistent basis.
22. Vanrajbhai Thakarshibhai Bagodariya v. State of Gujarat, 05-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing and setting aside F.I.R.
23. Vikrambhai Vajabhai Mori v. Collector and District Magistrate, 05-09-2018
Preventive Detention - The essential concept of the preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between the prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished to prove on proof of his guilt and the standard is proof beyond the reasonable doubt whereas in the preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.
24. Abhay Bipinbhai Pandya v. State of Gujarat, 04-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 507 and 153(A) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 14(A), 18 - Anticipatory Bail - the alleged use of abusive words which appear on the facebook messenger account of the complainant are not posted by the appellant nor is there any allegation or evidence to indicate that it is the appellant who has placed this on the facebook account. Considering, the age of the appellant being a student, the allegations made in the FIR neither allegation of use of any specific derogatory word nor there is anything on record to suggest that the appellant played any role in placing any derogatory material on the facebook account of the applicant, Even from the allegations in the FIR, no ingredients are made out so as to attract offence under the Atrocities Act, application for anticipatory bail allowed.
25. Gelco Electronics v. S.S. Corporation, 04-09-2018
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXVII - Summary Civil Suit - defendant has raised a triable issue to defend its case in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The defence raised by the defendant appears to be plausible and therefore leave to defend made by the defendant cannot be refused as substantial and plausible defence is raised. Instead of deciding the prayer made by the defendant granting/refusing leave to defend the suit, the learned judge straight away passed the decree against the defendant on an application submitted by the plaintiff on the summons for judgment Exh.16. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the suit by accepting these submissions made by the plaintiff without considering the defence/disputes raised by the defendant.
26. Hasmukhji Prahladji Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 04-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Prohibition Act - Sections 65(A), 65(E), 66(B), 116(B) - Anticipatory Bail - Allowed.
Comments
Post a Comment