Relying on landmark judgment here and here, Single judge bench of Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of 3330 days, considering the lapse was on the part of the advocate who did not file the Written Statement in the prescribed time.
Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022Category: High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification
Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015
A division bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows regarding the language of a High Court.
From Paras 13, 14 and 15,
13. Before we further proceed to examine the aspects of competency to assist the Court, we need to first consider on the aspect of language of the High Court. Article 343 of the Constitution of India provides for official language of the Union. Whereas, Article 348 of the Constitution of India provides for languages of Supreme Court and High Court, etc. It is hardly required to be stated that before the constitution was framed, there were constitutional debates and deliberation on various points including about language to be used in Supreme Court and High Courts. After deliberations constitutional framers have finalised Article 348 of the Constitution. The aforesaid shows that until the Parliament by law otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in English. Sub-Article (2) provides that the Governor of the State may with the previous consent of the President Authorise the use of Hindi language or any other language in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that State. But such would not be applicable to any judgment decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
14. The Parliament has enacted the Official Language Act, 1963 for providing languages to be used for official purpose of Union for transaction of business in Parliament under Central and State Act and also for certain purposes in the High Courts. The aforesaid shows that the President may authorise the use of Hindi or official language of the State in addition to English language for the purpose of any judgement decree or order passed or made by the High Court, but such shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in English language.
15. The aforesaid are the enabling powers, but so far as High Court of Gujarat is concerned, the learned Advocate General after verification, made a clear statement that no such order has been passed by the Governor under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution nor any order for authorisation has been passed by the President for use of Gujarati language or any other language and he further submitted that English language is already prescribed in the proceedings of the High Court and Supreme Court by Article 348 (1) of the Constitution. To say in other words, in absence of any order of the Governor under Article 348(2) of the Constitution or in absence of any authorisation under Section 7 of the Official Language Act, the language of the High Court of Gujarat as per the Constitution of India has to be English since the word used by the Constitution is “Shall be in English language”. Hence, it can be said that the language of the High Court of Gujarat shall be English unless any authorisation has been issued under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India or under section 7 of the Official Language Act by the Governor or the President, as the case may be.
From Para 18,
Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 201518. It is hardly required to be stated that the Constitution or any provision of the Constitution will prevail over any Act or the law made by the Parliament or the Rules made by any Rule making authority. If Rule 37 is to be given effect read with the above referred constitutional provision, it would mean the memorandum of proceedings by a party may be submitted in Gujarati or in English, but if it is in Gujarati, the party may be asked to supply English translation also and if there has no financial capacity to provide English translation, Court may direct the English translation to be made by the High Court and thereafter, the matter may be considered further. If Rule 37 of the Rules is not interpreted in that manner, it would run counter to Article 348 of the Constitution.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178909148/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e38c4a93261a1a76788f/
Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 29 Apr 2022
A Division bench of Gujarat High Court levied costs of 10000 on the delusioned wife who doesn’t want to cohabit with her husband because of different sub-castes, after living with him for 4 years. Most probably, a case of illegal affair taking shape here!
From paras 2 to 4,
Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 29 Apr 20222. Today when she is called, she has chosen not to change her mind. She reiteratively stated that the petitioner has no fault, she has no complaint against him, however, she does not want to continue this relationship and she is completely guided by her parents in her decision. She is no wrong in being influenced and guided by the parents in this matter although, they had courtship for about four years.
3. We find it extremely unfortunate that the educated couple needs to end the relationship in such a fashion just because there is a strong resistance on the part of the parents and taken in exert this kind of influence. We could notice that the petitioner inconsolably cried & is desolated because of this decision, however, it is for the parties to respectively chose their own forum for their respective rights. We have no answer for certain unfairness in the relationship.
4. We were unable to fathom anything from the repeated queries raised by us as to why she has chosen not to continue this relationship. The petitioner with all his hopes, aspirations and dreams had approached this Court and when he has met this destiny of his, we are of the firm opinion that that this is on account of unreasonable premise and unsubstantiated reason, we are constrained to award the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the petitioner from the private respondent, to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If not paid within a stipulated time period, consequences shall follow.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Rajeshwaridevi Vijaypalsingh Jadon Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Sep 2016
Single judge of Gujarat High Court directed the petitioner to go for Discharge at Trial Court and if unhappy with the outcome, the petitioners shall always take legal recourse which include application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
From Para 2,
Rajeshwaridevi Vijaypalsingh Jadon Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Sep 20162. This Court notices that the investigation has culminated into filing of the chargesheet. The charges are not as yet framed. The petitioner has efficacious remedy available for moving an application for discharge. Let the same be resorted to. If unhappy with the outcome, the petitioners shall always take legal recourse which include application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case. This disposal shall not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing the case. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/580ab2112713e175bec1bc26
Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016
Taking input from Kerala HC judgment here, Gujarat High Court held that, any agreement which has terms against to Public Policy, is void and not enforceable in law. Such agreements which prohibit right of maintenance are also void.
From Para 9,
Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 20169 In any case, all such issues are now well settled by few decisions of different Courts
[1] Rajesh R Nair v. Meera Babu reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3153, wherein Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that waiver of right to maintenance by an agreement is not permissible because such agreement would be void agreement as against public policy. It would amount to ousting of jurisdiction of Magistrate and Family Court to entertain maintenance claim which cannot be permitted by law. Therefore, such agreement being void would be unenforceable and hence claim for maintenance cannot be rejected on the basis of such agreement of waiver of right to maintenance.
[2] In Rishikesh Singh alias T.R. Singh v. Kiran Gautam reported in 2015 Cri.L.J. 126, Chhattisgarh High Court has confirmed that decree of divorce obtained by mutual consent would be no ground to deny maintenance until wife has not remarried after divorce. It is further held that even if wife is junior advocate, it cannot be held that she is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she would be entitled for the maintenance.
[3] Smt. Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in [1995] 5 SCC 299, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view that wife, who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125[4] and thereby restored the order of the Sessions Court, which has concluded that wife was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding divorce by mutual consent and remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining quantum of maintenance. Thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court which held that wife is not entitled to maintenance once she has divorced her marriage by mutual consent. It would be appropriate to recollect here that for coming to such conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon as many as three other decisions of different High Courts, which are quoted in such reported case and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, as on date, there are at least as many as five judgments including judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which confirm that a wife who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125 [4] of the Cr. P.C.
Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE GUJ 9136], [2017 AIC 172 524]
Other Sources:
https://mynation.net/docs/1095-2011/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e33e4a93261a1a744803
Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020
In this Judgment, Gujarat High Court read down two rules and made sure that a Law graduate is allowed a provisional enrollment number so as to allow her to appear for AIBE.
From Para 33,
Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 202033. In such circumstances, referred to above, we read down Rules 1 and 2 respectively of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules so as to read that a person may be either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, who otherwise is qualified to be admitted as an Advocate shall be admitted as an Advocate, however, the enrollment certificate of such a person shall be withheld with the Bar Council and shall lie in deposit with the Council until the concerned person makes a declaration that the circumstances mentioned in Rule 2 have ceased to exist and that he or she has started his/her practice.
Bharat Desai Editor of Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012
Single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows:
From Para 35,
35. From the contents of the news items published in the Times of India on 30th and 31st May, 2008 in the context of which the above referred two first information reports have been lodged, it is apparent that there is nothing therein which would cause disaffection amongst the members of the police officers against the State Government established by law. The contention that the comments regarding the State Government having appointed a person with a criminal background like the second respondent would induce in the minds of the subordinate officers an impression that they should not obey him and thus, induce disloyalty, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as what is stated in the articles is only an expression of an opinion as regards the act of the Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police. If the contention of the second respondent were to be accepted no adverse comment could be made as regards the appointment/promotion of any officer belonging to the police force, which cannot be the intention of the legislature while enacting the said provision. The test for the invoking the said provision would be whether the news items in question has the propensity of evoking amongst the members of the police force feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in India or the effect of inducing any member of the police force to withhold his service or to commit a breach of discipline. Besides, the news item has to be read from the stand point of a reasonable man. On a bare reading of the articles in question from the armchair of a reasonable person, the same can, in no manner, be said to have the effect of causing disaffection towards the Government nor can the same be said to have the likelihood of inducing any member of the police force to withhold the service or to commit a breach of discipline. A mere comment on the wisdom of the State Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police in the context of his background, can in no manner induce a prudent member of the police force to withhold his service or commit a breach of discipline, nor can such comment have the effect of creating disaffection against the Government. The provisions of section 3 of the said Act would, therefore, not be attracted in the facts of the present cases.
And then in Para 36,
Bharat Desai Editor, Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 201236. Another aspect of the matter is that a perusal of the allegations made in the first information reports shows that the contents of the sections invoked against the applicants have been mentioned therein so as to make out an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra) wherein it has been held that mere reference to the expressions mentioned in the provision would not disclose commission of an offence, when the ingredients constituting the offence in question are conspicuously lacking. In the facts of the present case, merely
because in the first information reports, it has been stated that the articles in question have been published with the intention to cause hatred against senior police officers of the State Government established by law and that the same have been published as an attempt to cause contempt and hatred against the State Government, the same would not fall within the ambit of section 124A IPC or section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, when the ingredients for constitution of an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the said Act are woefully lacking.
Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020
High Court of Gujarat has quashed the December 2017 election of Gujarat’s Law Minister, Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama to the State’s Legislative Assembly as violative of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
Latest: The LawMin appealed against High Court judgment at Supreme Court.
Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020Citations: []
Other Source links: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/such-an-election-should-not-be-permitted-to-hold-the-field-gujarat-hc-quashes-state-law-minister-bm-chudasamas-2017-election
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 18 December, 2015
In this judgment, Justice Shri JB Pardiwala had passed some critical remarks against Reservations in India and had irked 50+ Members of Parliament who triggered his Impeachment process in Rajya Sabha. Due to this he had to strike down a paragraph from the Judgment. Read the news clippings from this judgment and subsequent removals of the concerned paragraph from judgment.
Here is the Para 62 from the original judgment.
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Original Order)62. If I am asked by any one to name two things, which has destroyed this country or rather, has not allowed the country, to progress in the right direction, then the same is, (i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption.It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to ask for reservation after 65 years of independence.When our Constitution was framed, it was understood that the reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of independence. The biggest threats, today, for the country is corruption. The countrymen should rise and fight against corruption at all levels, rather than shedding blood and indulging in violence for the reservation. The reservation has only played the role of an amoeboid monster sowing seeds of discord amongst the people. The importance of merit, in any society, cannot be understated. The merit stands for a positive goal and when looked at instrumentally, stands for “rewarding those actions that are considered good”. Then, this instrumental nature of merit that should be given importance – emphasizing on and rewarding merit is a means towards achieving what is regarded as good in the society. The parody of the situation is that India must be the only country wherein some of the citizens crave to be called backward.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38630401/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0fa87607dba3896607933 (with original version of judgment)
Patidar quota agitation_ Gujarat High Court calls reservation an ‘amoeboid monster’ _ Cities News,The Indian ExpressThen the News follows
Sitting Gujarat HC judge does U-turn on remarks in Hardik Patel caseThen the Judge removes the Para 62
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Correction Order)
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Corrected Order)The following is the Revised Judgment, after removing Para 62
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017
This is the Regular Bail application of the Rapist Jayesh Patel that got rejected by Gujarat High Court.
Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155267301/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
