Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

C DOSHI

397 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 201–397.

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusBABUBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusBIJALBHAI VASHRAMBHAI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State Government, via a resolution dated 25‑10‑2016, classified compensation claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed that such matters be disposed of accordingly. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. filed several first appeals challenging compensation awards that were each below Rs.5 lakh. The Court, a

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusRAJUBHAI MOHANBHAI PAREKH

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusYOGESHBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusLHS OF DECD. DAHYAJI BABAJI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusVISHNUBHAI BABABHAI PATEL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusKALYANSINH RATAJI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusLH OF DECD SARTANBHAI HAMIRBHAI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusMANUBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusPRAVINBHAI DAHYABHAI PAREKH

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others appealed against compensation awards to Yogeshbhai Shakrabhai Patel in several first appeals, each involving amounts below Rs.5 lakh. The State Government, via a 2016 resolution, classified claims up to Rs.5 lakh as petty and directed their disposal. The Gujarat High Cour

DEPUTY COLLECTORversusSOLANKI NANDUBHAI RAMUBHAI

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The Deputy Collector filed a first appeal seeking condonation of delay. The sole respondent, Solanki, had died, and the applicant was required to bring the legal heirs of the deceased on record. The court noted that the applicant’s counsel had previously sought time for this purpose but failed to act. Consequently, the

SAIDABANU ABDULKARIM RANGREJversusMANAGER EVERCHEM DYES INDUSTRIES

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The deceased, Abdulbaksh Rangrej, a boiler attendant, suffered a cardiac arrest and died while on duty at Everchem Dyes Industries. His dependants filed a fatal workmen's compensation claim (WC Fatal Case No.58 of 1998) which was dismissed by the Workman Commissioner. The claimants appealed to the High Court under Sect

M/S AGARWAL TRANSPORT ORGANIZATIONversusM/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LIMITED

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

M/S Agarwal Transport Organization filed a first appeal against M/S Sterlite Industries (I) Limited and another party. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Hriday Buch, informed the court that no instructions had been received from the appellant to continue the proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal for

DESAI KANUBHAI GOKALBHAIversusPARMAR MANUBHAI KESRISINH

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

An appeal (First Appeal No. 2136 of 2011) was filed by Desai Kanubhai Gokalbhai against Parmar Manubhai Kesrisinh in the Gujarat High Court. The court served an advocate notice to the appellant, but no representative appeared before the bench. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground of non‑prosecutio

MAHARAJA SALT WORKS CO PVT LTDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd filed a first appeal (No. 2449 of 2011) against the State of Gujarat and another party. The appellant's counsel, Mr. MK Vakharia, failed to appear for the hearing despite multiple prior orders dated 18.04.2024, 13.02.2024, and 24.01.2024. On the hearing date of 10 April 2026, no represe

HEIRS OF RABARI LALA SAGATHAversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

HEIRS OF RABARI LALA SAGATHAversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a series of condonation of delay applications filed by Khant Ashok Hirabhai and others seeking restoration of pending civil matters against the State of Gujarat. The applicants argued that the delay in filing restoration applications was justified and requested the Court to condone

PATEL HARSANGBHAI KANJIBHAIversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

PATEL HARSANGBHAI KANJIBHAIversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

PATEL RAMJIBHAI AMRABHAIversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

PATEL RAMJIBHAI AMRABHAIversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a series of condonation of delay applications filed by Khant Ashok Hirabhai and others seeking restoration of pending civil matters against the State of Gujarat. The applicants argued that the delay in filing restoration applications was justified and requested the Court to condone

PATEL DAHYA ANADAversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a series of condonation of delay applications filed by Khant Ashok Hirabhai and others seeking restoration of pending civil matters against the State of Gujarat. The applicants argued that the delay in filing restoration applications was justified and requested the Court to condone

PATEL DAHYA ANADAversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

PATEL SOMETA KARSHAN GOPALversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a series of condonation of delay applications filed by Khant Ashok Hirabhai and others seeking restoration of pending civil matters against the State of Gujarat. The applicants argued that the delay in filing restoration applications was justified and requested the Court to condone

PATEL SOMETA KARSHAN GOPALversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND OFFICER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Khant Ashok Hirabhai & Ors., filed multiple civil applications and first appeals seeking restoration of their main matter, which had been stayed due to procedural delays and office objections. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and others, opposed the restoration. The Court examined the averments in

SIMARDEEP SINGH BHATIAversusSAHEEBA HARMINDERSINGH ARORA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Petitioner Simardeep Singh Bhatia filed a Special Civil Application seeking relief, but later expressed a desire to withdraw the petition, citing the court's apparent disinclination to entertain it. The petitioner, through advocate Mr. Kushal R. Shah, applied for permission to withdraw, which the court granted. The ord

DANUMAL FOTUMAL BHIMANI (DECEASED)versusGANGARAM KOZAMAL POPAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Danumal Fotumal Bhimani (deceased) and an associate, filed an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main civil suit against the respondents, Gangaram Kozamal Popat and others. The application was presented before the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, and was argued by Mr. Karan K.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYversusDHAVALBHAI BHARATBHAI SODHA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The National Insurance Company appealed a judgment (Case No.15 of 2002) that awarded the claimants compensation of Rs.3,71,901 with 12% interest. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Gujarat, First Appeal No. 1393 of 2012. The Court, after hearing counsel, observed that the appeal raised no substantial question of

ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LIMITEDversusMINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed three first appeals filed by Anil Starch Products Limited against Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India and others because the appellant’s counsel was repeatedly absent and appeared uninterested in prosecuting the matters. The court noted that the appellant’s advocate had

ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LIMITEDversusMINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed three first appeals filed by Anil Starch Products Limited against Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India and others because the appellant’s counsel was repeatedly absent and appeared uninterested in prosecuting the matters. The court noted that the appellant’s advocate had

ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LIMITEDversusMINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed three first appeals filed by Anil Starch Products Limited against Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India and others because the appellant’s counsel was repeatedly absent and appeared uninterested in prosecuting the matters. The court noted that the appellant’s advocate had

EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusPRAGATI KAMDAR SAHKARI MANDALI

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The appellant, an Executive Engineer, filed First Appeal No. 2910 of 2012 against Pragati Kamdar Sahkari Mandali & Anr. The matter was heard before the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, by Justice J.C. Doshi. The appellant was represented by Mr. H.S. Munshaw, while the respondents had no advocate on record. The court o

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusGUJARAT HYDROLICS PVT. LTD

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation appealed against Gujarat Hydrolics Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the respondent had not filed the required D.S. affidavit. The judge warned that if the affidavit is not filed by 4 May 2026, the proceedings will be dismissed for default. The matter was adjo

REGIONAL DIRECTORversusSODHANSANSKAR PVT.LTD.

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The Regional Director filed a first appeal against Sodhansanskar Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the respondent had not filed a D.S. affidavit required under the fresh rule. The judge directed that if the affidavit is not filed by 4 May 2026, the proceedings will be dismissed for default without further referral to the

JAYANTILAL HARGOVANDAS THAKKARversusGRAM PANCHAYAT,RATANGADH

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellants, three brothers who operated under the name Jayantilal Hargovandas Thakkar & Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for breach of a contract to cut babool trees on 174 acres of Gauchar land awarded by Ratangadh Gram Panchayat. The contract was later obstructed by the Forest Departme

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITEDversusSHANKARBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The High Court of Gujarat entertained a civil application for condonation of delay filed by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited against Shankarbhai Dayabhai Patel and another. The applicant sought time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent. The court noted that earlier it had already granted ti

STATE OF GUJARATversusPATEL DEVKARANBHAI GALBABHAI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the award of Rs.1910 per square metre in LAR Case No.112 of 2017. The State argued that the compensation was excessive, relying on a prior decision that reduced compensation by 20% for a comparable village (Gajan). The High Co

TORRENT POWER LTD.versusRAMABEN BALKRISHNA PUROHIT (DECD. THRO LEGAL HEIRS)

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The mother and brother of Shayan filed a suit against Ahmedabad Electricity Company (now Torrent) and Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) for compensation after Shayan died from electrocution caused by a short circuit in a 132 kV line. The trial court awarded Rs 1,90,000 with interest, holding both electricity companies jo

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusSUDHABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI) appealed against an ESI Court order granting dependency benefits to the family of the deceased Ramanbhai Patel, who died of a cardiac arrest while on duty. The appellant argued that the death was due to a pre‑existing coronary disease and not an employment injury under S

GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARDversusRAMABEN BALKRISHNA PUROHIT (DEC. THRO LEGAL HEIRS)

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The mother and brother of Shayan filed a suit against Ahmedabad Electricity Company (now Torrent) and Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) for compensation after Shayan died from electrocution caused by a short circuit in a 132 kV line. The trial court awarded Rs 1,90,000 with interest, holding both electricity companies jo

GUJ.ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW DAXIN GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTDversusSWARUPSHRI YARN PVT LTD

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The Gujarat Electricity Board (now Daxin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd) and Swarupshri Yarn Pvt. Ltd were parties to cross‑appeals arising from a common judgment dated 30 March 2000. The appeals had been adjourned repeatedly on the ground of settlement, and a stay application filed by the Board was rejected in 2018. When the mat

GUJ.ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW DAXIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTDversusSWARUPSHRI YARN PVT LTD

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The Gujarat Electricity Board (now Daxin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd) and Swarupshri Yarn Pvt. Ltd were parties to cross‑appeals arising from a common judgment dated 30 March 2000. The appeals had been adjourned repeatedly on the ground of settlement, and a stay application filed by the Board was rejected in 2018. When the mat

MARUTI PROCESSORSversusJAYPRAKASH RAJUBHAI PATEL

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

In the first appeal filed by Maruti Processors against Jayprakash Rajubhai Patel, the parties jointly presented a notarized settlement indicating a total compensation of Rs.3,18,773 for a non‑fatal work‑men's case. The appellant had already paid Rs.50,000 and subsequently paid an additional Rs.2,75,000, exceeding the c

NITESHBHAI BHANJIBHAI KHETIYAversusDEPUTY COLLECTOR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Niteshbhai Bhanjibhai Khetiya filed a first appeal against the Deputy Collector and others, but failed to file it within the prescribed period, resulting in a delay of 354 days. The applicant's counsel, Mr. Pratik K. Chaudhary, highlighted that respondents 3.1 and 3.3 are the applicant's siblings and that respondent 2,

MAGANBHAI DURLABHBHAI PATELversusVITTHALBHAI SUKHABHAI PATEL

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

In First Appeal No. 4680 of 2022, the appellant Maganbhai Durlabhai Patel sought relief against respondents. The court noted that D.S. affidavits for numerous respondents had not been filed in the appeal. It directed that if these affidavits are not filed by 27 April 2026, the proceedings will be dismissed for default.

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP.LTD.versusPATEL CHATURDAS VIRAMDAS

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The State Government, via a Government Resolution dated 25‑10‑2016, classified claims up to Rs 5 lakh as petty claims to be disposed of expeditiously. In the present first appeal, the compensation awarded to the claimants was less than Rs 5 lakh. The appellant, represented by M/S Trivedi & Gupta, challenged the award,

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusNAYAK GULABBHAI SHANABHAI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the La

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusDHULABHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the La

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusPRAVINBHAI PRABHATBHAI PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference and were awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal. The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the Land Acqu

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusUDESINH RATANSINH PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the La

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusRAYJIBHAI SABURBHAI PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference under the Land Acquisition Act and the reference court awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre. The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the Land Acquis

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusHEIRS OF DECEASED RAMSINH HIMMATSINH PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference under the Land Acquisition Act and the reference court awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre. The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the Land Acquis

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusRAYJIBHAI ADARBHAI PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the La

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusPRAVINBHAI PRABHATBHAI PARMAR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under Section 54 of the La

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusMANCHHABEN MANGALBHAI SHIVABHAI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference case (651/2009‑659/2009) before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal. The State appealed the award under Section

RASESH BHARATKUMAR SHAHversusHETAL W/O RASESH SHAH D/O DILIPBHAI KUMBHANI

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

Rasesh Bharatkumar Shah filed a special civil application against Hetal, the wife of Rasesh Shah and daughter of Dilipbhai Kumbhani, seeking relief. The petition was listed on the board multiple times, but the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Hitendra D. Rajput, failed to appear on several occasions and had previously taken t

VIJAYGIRI VASUDEVGIRI GOSWAMIversusHASMITA VIJAYGIRI GOSWAMI

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Vijaygiri Vasudevgiri Goswami, filed a special civil application and later sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The respondent, Hasmita Vijaygiri Goswami, was represented by counsel. The learned advocate for the petitioner requested withdrawal of the petition. The Court, after conside

KIRIT PADMANABH VYASversusBANK OF BARODA

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

In the first appeal filed by the late Kirit Padmanabh Vyas against Bank of Baroda, the appellant died in 2017. The court noted that the sole appellant's death renders the appeal abated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and any interim relief previously granted was vacated. The appellant's heirs expressed intent t

M/S WEIGHSCALE INDIA PVT LTDversusKISHOREBHAI @ KASHIRAM SHANKARDAS PATEL

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant, M/s Weighscale India Pvt Ltd, failed to deposit the cost required for preparing the paper‑book in the first appeal. The court noted the omission and, invoking Rule No. 429 of the Civil Manual and Circular No. JUDICIAL/22/2025, directed the appellant to deposit the cost by 2 April 2026. The order warned t

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusDOLATSANG JIVABHAI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matters, which the High Court allowed. The same applications also included first appeals challenging compensation awards. The Court noted that each appeal involved compensation of less than Rs.5 lakh, which the S

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANANDversusBAJUBEN ADESANG SOLANKI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matters, which the High Court allowed. The same applications also included first appeals challenging compensation awards. The Court noted that each appeal involved compensation of less than Rs.5 lakh, which the S

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANANDversusKAHALSANG DHIRUBHAI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matters, which the High Court allowed. The same applications also included first appeals challenging compensation awards. The Court noted that each appeal involved compensation of less than Rs.5 lakh, which the S

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusFATEHSANG ABHESANG

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Special Land Acquisition Officer filed applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matters, which the High Court allowed. The same applications also included first appeals challenging compensation awards. The Court noted that each appeal involved compensation of less than Rs.5 lakh, which the S

PROJECT MANAGER - OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITEDversusTHAKOR MATHURJI SONAJI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Project Manager of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matter against Thakor Mathurji Sonaji & Anr. The applicant also moved for an amendment to insert the name of advocate Mr. Ashok Prajapati for the legal heirs of the respondent. Th

MITTALBEN MANHARLAL MEHTA W/O HIRENKUMAR VASANTLAL SUKALversusHIRENKUMAR VASANTLAL SUKAL

58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order that granted the father visitation rights every Sunday from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and directed interim custody to be handed over after 7 p.m. The High Court observed that the trial court had not examined the child's welfare or the child's wishes, effectively treating the c

UNION OF INDIAversusPRATIMA W/O RAKESH DALVI (W/O DECEASED)

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The Union of India filed a first appeal (No. 3106 of 2024) challenging a civil application for stay filed by Pratima w/o Rakesh Dalvi and others. The primary procedural issue was the service of notice to Respondent No.3, which had not been served. The Court directed the appellant’s counsel to effect service of the unse

DINESHKUMAR JEMALDAN BAROTversusLILABEN D/O DEVARAM BHAAT (MEHRA)

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jemaldan Barot, filed a first appeal against a decision involving his former spouse, Lilaben. Both parties were reported to be living separately. The appellant's counsel stated that attempts to contact the petitioner were unsuccessful. The court noted that the appellant had not removed the r

PRAKASHCHANDRA GAUTAMBHAI DAMORversusSHAMBUBHAI NAVALBHAI BHAMAT

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The appellant Prakashchandra Gautambhai Damor filed a first appeal against a district court order that appointed Shambubhai Navalbhai Bhamat as guardian of two minor daughters of the deceased Naynaben. Both daughters have now attained the age of majority, having turned 18 years old. The parties argued that the guardian

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusSABABSANG SHIBHABHAI

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and another party filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay before the Gujarat High Court. The respondent, Sababsang Shibhbai, was an unserved expired deceased, and the court noted that the heirs of the respondent had not been brought before it. The issue before the cou

VINOD DILIP HENDREversusKALIYANI VINOD HENDRE

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The husband (petitioner) filed a Hindu Marriage Petition (HMP) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency, the wife (respondent) filed an application under Section 24 of the same Act seeking interim maintenance, which the husband did not contest. The Family C

BRAHMANE MANISHA SADANANDBHAIversusUNION OF INDIA

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The deceased Sadanand Brahmane died after falling from an upper berth due to a sudden jerk in a train traveling from Bhusawal to Surat. The Railway Claims Tribunal had rejected his family's claim for compensation, holding that the incident did not qualify as an "untoward accident" under section 123(c) of the Railway Cl

SHEKH SIPAHISHAHIN MOHAMMADHUSSAINversusSHEKH SIRINBANU MOHAMMADSHAHID

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 17721 of 2024 before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner, through counsel, sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the petition while retaining the liberty to revive it if needed. The Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, granted the request, ordering the p

STATE OF GUJARATversusVITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The plaintiff, a contractor, performed earth‑filling work on the direction of officials of the defendant department but was not paid. After repeated notices, the plaintiff filed a suit for Rs 4,69,000 with interest; the trial court partially decreed Rs 1,40,000 with 6% interest. The defendants appealed under Section 96

ABHESING RUMALBHAI PARGHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Abhesing Rumalbhai Parghi, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 173‑day delay in filing a restoration application for a Special Criminal Application that had been dismissed multiple times for non‑prosecution. The petitioner repeatedly

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ.CO.LTDversusHASAM MAMAD SAMA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The parents of Abdul Hasam sued Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (PGVCL) for compensation after their son was electrocuted by a hanging live wire while crossing a lake embankment on 6‑12‑2001. The trial court held PGVCL negligent and ordered it to pay Rs.3,38,000 with 9% interest per annum. PGVCL appealed, contending that

KALPESHKUMAR AMRATBHAI NAIversusFALGUNIBEN D/O MAFATLAL GOHIL

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner filed a Special Civil Application seeking relief in connection with Family Suit No. 82 of 2022. The Family Court had dismissed the family suit for default on 22 October 2024. The petitioner submitted the judgment as evidence, and the High Court examined whether the pending application could continue. The

MAFATLAL MANILAL DALALversusTHE GUJARAT STATE CO OP COTTON FEDERATION LTD

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

Mafatlal Manilal Dalal filed a first appeal (No. 2875 of 2024) against the Gujarat State Co‑op Cotton Federation Ltd and others. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Suren M. Shah, was absent when the matter was called. The respondents had not filed the required DS affidavit, and the court had set a deadline of 20‑April‑2026 f

SAGAR NARAN SAMATversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The appellant, Sagar Naran Samat, challenged a judgment dated 29‑December‑2022 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Keshod, which dismissed LRC No.151 of 2016 on the ground that the claimants failed to produce evidence despite ample opportunity. The appeal was confined to LRC No.151 and was argued before the High Court

DEPUTY COLLECTORversusGANDABHAI BHAGVANBHAI PARMAR

33-CA DISPOSED OF

The Deputy Collector filed an application for condonation of delay in a civil suit. The court directed the applicants to serve the unserved respondent by 20 April 2026, failing which the suit would be dismissed without further reference to the court. The order also stayed the matter until 23 April 2026. No substantive

NARENDRA C DESAI(DECEASED)versusJOGESH JAGMOHANDAS PANWALA

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

In a civil revision application, the petitioner No.1.2 had died and petitioner No.1.1 failed to appear despite being served notice. The court observed that petitioner No.1.1 showed no interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The registry was directed to retur

JITENDRASINH BHAVSINH VADHERversusMOHANSINH BHAVSINH VADHER

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

In Second Appeal No. 231 of 2022, the sole appellant, Jitendrasinh Bhavsinh Vadher, had died before the hearing. The appellant's counsel informed the court of the death, prompting the judge to consider the effect of the appellant's demise on the pending appeal. The court held that the appeal stands abated, but the heir

HUSEN MAMAD KARA ISMAIL KAKALversusPRABHULAL MANILAL MEHTA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant, Husen Mamad Kara Ismail Kakal, filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the main matter before the High Court of Gujarat. The respondent, Prabhulal Manilal Mehta & Ors., opposed the application. The court examined the averments made in the application. No detailed reasoning was recorde

RAMANI EDUCATION TRUSTversusHEIRS OF DECD. MOHANBHAI NATHABHAI VADODARIYA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Ramani Education Trust and others filed a second appeal and sought condonation of delay in preferring the main matter. The application was supported by averments filed before the High Court of Gujarat. Counsel for the applicants and respondents appeared before the court, and notice was served on the respondents. The co

BECHARBHAI GANGARAMBHAI PATELversusGODAVARIBEN RANCHODBHAI PATEL

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The appellant, Becharbhai Gangaramabhai Patel & ors., filed a second appeal and a civil application for stay against Godavariben Ranchodbhai Patel & ors. The court noted that respondent No.4 had not been served with notice and that service to respondent No.2 had expired. The judge directed the appellant to complete ser

GAURAV MANUJI THAKORversusRAKESHKUMAR BABUJI THAKOR

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner was previously directed to serve the unserved respondents and failed to do so. During the first hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested a continuance to the second session, but the counsel was absent when the matter was called. The court, noting the repeated delay and absence, granted a final opportu

VINODCHANDRA BHAVANJI GALIAversusWIDOW BHANUMATI TALAKSHI SHAH

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The appellants Vinodchandra BhavanjI Galia & Anr filed multiple appeals and civil applications before the Gujarat High Court. The court observed that notices to several respondents (Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10) had either not been served or not returned, and no further steps were taken to effect service. The judge granted

BAHADURSINH ISHWARSINH VANSADIYAversusVATSALABEN WD/O DEVJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI VASAVA

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The High Court of Gujarat issued an oral order in Second Appeal No. 608 of 2022, directing that if no step is taken by 27 April 2026, the present proceedings shall be dismissed for default without further referral to the Court. The order notes that respondent No.2 has expired. A further sanction order is set for 30 Apr

DEPUTY ENGINEER, PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.versusDIPAKBHAI PARBATBHAI BERADIYA

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The Deputy Engineer of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. filed a civil application for condonation of delay, seeking four weeks to bring the legal heirs of the deceased respondent on record. The court considered whether the applicant should be allowed additional time to comply with procedural requirements. It was held t

SARKHEJ ROZA COMMITTEEversusSHAHRUKHKHAN ABDUL RAUFKHAN PATHAN

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, represented by the Sarkhej Roza Committee, filed a group of civil revision applications under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, challenging a Waqf Tribunal order that rejected their plaint on the ground of insufficient court fees under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribun

SARKHEJ ROZA COMMITTEEversusDAUDBHAI RAJEBHAI VOHRA

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sarkhej Roza Committee, challenged a Waqf Tribunal order that dismissed its plaint for insufficient court fees and improper valuation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that CPC provisions do not apply to Waqf suits under the Waqf Act, 1995, and that the Tr

SARKHEJ ROZA COMMITTEEversusCHANDBIBI ABDULRAUFKHAN PATHAN

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sarkhej Roza Committee, challenged a Waqf Tribunal order that dismissed its plaint for insufficient court fees and improper valuation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that CPC provisions do not apply to Waqf suits under the Waqf Act, 1995, and that the Tr

GOVINDBHAI NARANBHAI AHIRversusPARSHOTTAM BAVABHAI PATEL

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The appellant Govindbhai Naranbhai Ahir filed a second appeal and a civil application for interim relief against Parshottam Bavabhai Patel. The matter was listed repeatedly before the High Court of Gujarat. The appellant’s counsel, Shivani R Modi, failed to appear on several occasions and was observed to be unintereste

ROHIT MANOJ MANDHYANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the main criminal matter that had been previously removed from the court file. The High Court examined the application and noted a delay in filing the restoration request, which left the court uncertain about events during the intervening

TULSI RASULBHAI RATHVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Tulsi Rasulbhai Rathva, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the main criminal case (R/Criminal Misc.Application/12020/2020) after a delay. The court noted that the delay left it uncertain what transpired during the intervening period. Despite the lapse, the judge held that

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTDversusPEARL SHIPTRANS PVT LTD

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Apollo International Ltd. and another filed civil revision applications seeking permission to withdraw their petitions. The petitioners, through counsel Mr. Jay A. Bhagdev, requested the court to allow the withdrawal. The court considered whether it had the authority to permit such a withdrawal under procedural law. It

CLS LOGISTICS PVT LTDversusPEARL SHIPTRANS PVT LTD

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Apollo International Ltd. and another filed civil revision applications seeking permission to withdraw their petitions. The respondents, Pearl Shiptrans Pvt. Ltd., were represented by counsel. The petitioners applied to the High Court of Gujarat for leave to withdraw the pending proceedings. The Court, after hearing th

DIPAKKUMAR DHIRAJLAL THAKKARversusMADHJIBHA KAPURJI THAKOR (ABATE)

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Dipakkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar filed a second appeal in the High Court of Gujarat but failed to file it within the prescribed period, resulting in a delay of 522 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, explaining that he was arrested in Dubai, detained there, and later extradited to India, which prevented h

YUSUF MUHAMMAD SONIversusCORPORATOR MUSTAK ISMAIL SONI

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Yusuf Muhammad Soni, filed a civil revision application and later sought the court's permission to withdraw the petition. The petitioner’s counsel, Rizwan Shaikh, requested the withdrawal, while the respondents were represented by Ashish M. Dagli and Manish S. Shah. The Hon'ble Justice J.C. Doshi consid

PATEL HASANBHAI ALIBHAI AADAMBHAIversusPATEL JAYESHKUMAR ISHWARBHAI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the appellate court’s decree granting specific performance in a suit concerning a shop mortgaged by a conditional sale deed dated 24‑09‑1979. The deed required the plaintiff to repay Rs.13,000 after seven years, upon which the defendant would

M/S CHETAN PHARMA DISTRIBUTORSversusKAMINIBEN BHARATBHAI PATVA

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

M/s Chetan Pharma Distributors filed a civil application for condonation of delay against respondents Kaminiben Bharatbhai Patva and others. The applicant was required to file an affidavit of direct service for respondents No.1 to 7, which was not filed. The High Court directed that the affidavit must be filed on or be

NATHIBEN KARSHANBHAI PARMARversusMANSINGBHAI UKABHAI PARMAR

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

In two civil revision applications (Nos. 562 and 563 of 2025), the petitioners, represented by Advocate Dev D. Patel, sought an early adjudication of the underlying suit, noting that evidence recording was already underway. The petitioner argued that the trial court should decide the suit promptly and that the revision

NATHIBEN KARSHANBHAI PARMARversusMANSINGBHAI UKABHAI PARMAR

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

In two civil revision applications (Nos. 562 and 563 of 2025), the petitioners, represented by Advocate Dev D. Patel, sought an early adjudication of the underlying suit, noting that evidence recording was already underway. The petitioner argued that the trial court should decide the suit promptly and that the revision

SHASHTRI BHAKTIPRIYADASJI GURU UTTAMPRIYADASJIversusBALABHAI MANJIBHAI VAGHRI

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant filed a revision against a trial court order that dismissed an execution proceeding on the ground that the decree pertained to a prohibitory injunction and could not be executed for possession of the suit premises. The High Court held that this dismissal conflicted with established law, noting that object

BECHARBHAI JETHABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Becharbhai Jethabhai and others, filed Civil Revision Application No. 6549/2025 seeking condonation of delay. The respondents, the State of Gujarat and another party, were served notice of the application. The matter was heard before Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Doshi of the Gujarat High Court. The court c

AMRUTLAL HARKHAJIBHAI MENPARAversusASHABEN ARVINDKUMAR PATEL

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Amrutlal Harkajibhai Menpara & Anr filed a civil revision application (C/CA/1685/2025) seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. The respondents were served notice and the matter was listed before Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Doshi. The court examined the averments made in the application regarding the reasons f

KALIDAS RATABHAI CHAUHANversusMANGALBHAI RAISINGBHAI PARMAR SINCE DIED THROUGH LHR

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in a second appeal. The applicant later submitted evidence that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the original decree was satisfied, leading the original decree holder to withdraw the darkhast. Consequently, the applicant, through couns

AISHABEN MAHMADSAEED MAULVIversusSULTANBHAI GAFURBHAI MULTANI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant filed a second appeal after a delay and sought condonation of that delay. The court examined the application and, finding no substantive objection, allowed the application, thereby condoning the delay in filing the second appeal. No detailed factual background or legal arguments were recorded in the order

SHUKAL KARNAVI D/O BHARGAVNATH GIRINDRANATHversusPUROHIT PARTH BHADRESHKUMAR

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Shukal Karnavi, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a declaration that the divorce deed executed between the parties is sufficient to dissolve their marriage. The trial and appellate courts had held that a divorce deed is not permissible in the Brahmin community

PATEL JAYANTIBHAI MANILALversusPATEL KAUSHIKABEN PUNJIRAM

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The petitioners (Patel Jayantibhai Manilal & ors.) filed a civil application for condonation of delay in a second appeal. The respondents (Patel Kaushikaben Punjiram & ors.) failed to file a DS affidavit for respondents Nos.3,7,8,9. The court directed that if the DS affidavit is not filed on or before 16‑03‑2026, the p

INDUBEN CHAMANLAL KANDOIversusHEIR OF AMRUTLAL ANANDJI JITENDRA AMRUTLAL SOLANKI

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The sole petitioner in a civil revision application died on 21 April 2025. The court directed the petitioner’s representatives to file a petition to bring the heirs on record, but no such steps were taken. At the hearing on 10 February 2026, the petitioner’s counsel was absent. Since the heirs had not been identified a

PATEL RASHESHBHAI MADHUSUDANBHAIversusLHS OF THAKOR CHANDABEN W/O LATE JUGAJI SAGAL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

In a civil revision application, Patel Rashesbhai sought relief against the LHS of Thakor Chandaben. The court noted that several notices served on the respondents had expired and that the petitioner had not taken steps to bring the heirs of the deceased respondent on record. The court observed that the petitioner had

LHS OF DECD. RAMJIBHAI JETHABHAI RATHODversusMANIBEN W/O ARJAN LAKHMAN (ABATED)

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The appellants filed a second appeal and sought the court's permission to withdraw it. The learned advocate, on behalf of the appellants, requested that the appeal be withdrawn. Justice J.C. Doshi granted the permission, ordering that the appeal stand disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, the associated civil applica

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusNIRMA LTD.

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The landlord (original HUF) sued Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and its sub‑lessee Mahendra Motors for unlawful occupation of a 1,000‑sq‑yard plot leased in 1970. The lease expired on 29 September 1984 and the landlord refused renewal, seeking eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court and the Small C

MAHENDRA PATELversusBHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The landlord (original HUF members) sued Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) and its sub‑lessee Mahendra Motors for unlawful occupation of a 1,000‑sq‑yard plot leased in 1970. The lease expired on 29‑Sept‑1984 and the landlord refused renewal, seeking eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court and the Smal

PRAKASHBHAI NANDLAL BHATT (SWAMINARAYAN)versusKESHAVLAL AMBALAL PATEL

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Prakashbhai Nandlal Bhatt, filed a second appeal and a civil application for stay, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant requested the court's permission to withdraw, and the court exercised its discretion to grant the request. The court clarified that it did n

MAHESH NATUBHAI GAMITversusCHHAGANBHAI RESHIABHAI THROUGH HEIRS AND L.R.

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellants challenged a judgment that had set aside a trial court decree declaring a 1986 Will executed by their grandfather Reshiabhai void on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The trial court had found the Will fraudulent but dismissed the suit for jurisdictional reasons; the appellate

HANSABEN W/O JIVAN BARIYAversusSAKARBHAI RAMBHAI SOLANKI

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The plaintiff Hansaben filed a suit seeking declaration and cancellation of a 1990 sale deed, asserting she became the owner of a one‑acre land after purchasing it from defendant No.1 in 2009. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then filed a second app

PRAVINCHANDRA CHIMANLAL SHAHversusHARSHADKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA SANGHAVI

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. KV Shelat, informed the court that he had received no instructions from his client despite his efforts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for default, granting the petitioner liberty to revive the petition if he faces difficulty. The court also vacated any interim relief that

NARVARBHAI CHHEDADBHAI VASAVversusBHIMJIBHAI CHHEDABHAI VASAVA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Narvarbhai Chhedadbhaï Vasav, filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main matter and in filing a second appeal to bring legal heirs on record. The respondents, Bhimjibhai Chhedabhai Vasava, were served with an unserved expired notice. The High Court examined the averme

HIRAJI AACHAR @AACHU MARWADA (BHADRU)versusPASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant, Hiraji Aachar @Aachu Marwada (Bhadru), filed a second appeal (No. 2126/2025) and subsequently sought condonation of delay in preferring the main matter. The respondent, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., opposed the application. The court examined the averments made in the application regarding the reason

MILAN HARISHBHAI MAHETAversusMANAJI SHAKRAJI

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant, Milan Harishbhai Maheta, filed a Civil Revision Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the CRA, alleging that he suffered from bipolar disorder and depression since July 2022, which prevented him from contacting counsel. The applicant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mehul S. Shah, submitted medica

NOORMOHMAD ABDEREHMAN JHAVERIversusHASANBHAI IBRAHIM JUNEJA

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The appellant Noormohmad Abderehman Jhaveri & Anr filed a second appeal and a civil revision. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel, Mr. PJ Kanabar, stated that he had no instructions to represent the parties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for default, granting the appellant liberty to revive the m

DEENDAYAL KANHAIYALAL BAJAJversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Deendayal Kanhaiyalal Bajaj, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main criminal matter. The application was supported by counsel Mr. Suraj A. Shukla. The State of Gujarat, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave, opposed the condonatio

ADMINISTRATORversusRAMUBHAI KAMALGIRI GAUSWAMI

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The plaintiffs, Ramubhai Kamalgiri Gauswami and others, claimed long‑standing possession of houses No.11/103 and 11/104 in Ambaji Panchayat, asserting they had lived there for over 30 years, paid taxes and sought a permanent injunction against the Administrator of the Arasuri Ambaji Devsthan Trust and the Gram Panchaya

HARSHABEN D/O PREMJIBHAI AJAGIYA W/O SURESHBHAI RATHODversusBINABEN DILIPBHAI MAKWANA

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The petitioners, Harshaben D/o Premjibhai Ajagiya w/o Sureshbhai Rathod and others, filed a second appeal against a decree in favor of the respondent, Binaben Dilipbhai Makwana. The appeal was listed multiple times, and while notice was served on several appellants, they either remained absent or were unserved due to i

JITENDRA RAGHUNANDAN GOSAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners filed several criminal miscellaneous and special criminal applications seeking restoration of their matters to the original court files. The applications were listed before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi of the Gujarat High Court on 27 January 2026. The court examined the applications and found no

KIRITBHAI ISHVARBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Kiritbhai Ishvarbhai Patel filed a special criminal application seeking restoration of the main matter to its original file. The State of Gujarat and another party were respondents. The applicant was represented by Mr. C.P. Champaneri, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Chintan Dave, Additional Public Prosec

CHAUHAN RATANBEN KESHAJIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in a pending matter before the High Court of Gujarat. They alleged that sufficient cause existed for the delay and submitted an affidavit supporting their claim. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the d

MOHAMMAD SABBIR BASIRBHAI CHEJRAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in a pending matter before the High Court of Gujarat. The application alleged that sufficient cause existed for the delay. The court examined the averments and was satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated adequate reasons for

BHIKHABHAI MAHADEVBHAI RABARIversusDEFENSE ESTATE OFFICER

37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION

The appellant, Bhikhabhai Mahadevbhai Rabari, filed a second appeal and a civil application for stay against the Defense Estate Officer and another respondent. The court observed that the respondents had not filed the required DS affidavit since the matter was initiated in 2021. The judge directed that the DS affidavit

SHETH VINODCHANDRA MAFATLAL, LH OF DECEASED SHETH MAFATLAL MOHANLALversusLHS OF DECEASED HARIJAN JAGTABHAI RAIMALBHAI (WRONGLY TYPED AS MAVABHAI )

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sheth Vinodchandra Mafatlal, filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the main matter of a second appeal. The High Court considered the averments made in the application. The court found the reasons satisfactory and allowed the application. Consequently, the delay in filing the main m

PRADIPKUMAR GORDHANDAS PATELversusCHANDRAKANT JIVANLAL PATEL

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The plaintiff, Chandrakant J. Patel, sought a possession warrant against his relative Pradipkumar G. Patel under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882, claiming that the permission to occupy the disputed premises had been withdrawn. The Small Cause Court issued the warrant under Section 43, which the

STATE OF GUJARATversusSUJATHA CHANDRASEKHAR PILLAI

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The plaintiff, Sujatha Chandrasekhar Pillai, sought a compassionate appointment after her mother, a staff nurse, died in service while Sujatha was a minor. The trial court dismissed her suit, holding she was maintained by her father (a government employee) and family pension, and that the applicable Gujarat Government

MESSRS JAYRAJ GROUP OF COMPANIESversusUNION BANK OF INDIA

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Messrs Jayraj Group of Companies, filed a civil revision application before the High Court of Gujarat. Subsequently, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing, granted permission to withdraw, disposing the petition as withdrawn and discharging the not

BALDEVBHAI KESHAVLAL SUTHAR (DECD)THROUGH SUBHADRABEN BALDversusKANTILAL AMBALAL SUTHAR

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The appellant, Baldevbhai Keshavlal Suthar (deceased) and five other co‑appellants, filed a second appeal against Kantilal Ambalal Suthar and another respondent. Notice of appearance was issued to the appellants, but appellant No.1 had died and appellants No.2‑6, although served, did not appear or file any response. Th

DINESHSING BHAVARSING SHEKAWATversusJITENDRAKUMAR BANSILAL SHARMA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Dineshsing Bhavarsing Shekawat, filed an application before the Gujarat High Court seeking condonation of delay in preferring the main civil matter. The respondents, Jitendrakumar Bansilal Sharma and another, were served with the application. The court considered the averments made in the application r

AXITA DHIRAJBHAI VASANIversusSMARK JAYANTIBHAI DOBARIYA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The applicant Axita Dhirajbhai Vasani filed a petition seeking condonation of a seven‑day delay in filing a Civil Revision Application. The respondent, Smark Jayantibhai Dobariya, was served notice but did not appear before the Court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was inadvertent and that condoning it w

SHIVABHAI GOVABHAI DAYMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Shivabhai Govabhai Dayma, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the main criminal matter. The application was presented before the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, with Mr. M R Saiyed appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, Additional Public Prosec

BRIJESHBHAI MAHENDRABHAI AMINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Brijeshbhai Mahendrabhai Amin & Anr., filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking restoration. They later requested permission to withdraw the petition, seeking liberty to file a fresh application if a discharge application is decided against them. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted permi

UMARJI ISMAIL MUSAversusIDRIS MOHAMMAD VALI SHETH

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Umarji Ismail Musa, sought permission to withdraw his civil revision petition, which contained only an innocuous relief, in order to expedite the pending trial. The High Court considered the request and granted permission for the withdrawal, disposing the petition as withdrawn. The court directed the tr

HEIRS OF RABIYABIBI MAKBUL HUSHEN SHEIKHversusGULAM MOHMAD AHMAD SHEIKH (ABATED)

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application. The respondent, Mokadiya Ajaiben Ramabhai, was served notice. The sole issue before the court was whether the delay in filing the application could be condoned. The court

LALITABEN HASMUKHBHAI RANAversusCHANDUBHAI JENABHAI CHAUHAN

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The appellants, Lalitabeni Hasmukhbhai Rana & others, filed a second appeal before the Gujarat High Court. Their counsel, Mr. Rutul P. Desai, claimed he had not received any instructions from the appellants despite attempts to contact them. Consequently, the court noted a lack of prosecution of the appeal. The judge di

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTDversusNARANBHAI PITHABHAI VAJA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application. The respondent, Mokadiya Ajaiben Ramabhai, was served notice. The sole issue before the court was whether the delay in filing the application could be condoned. The court

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTDversusSANDEEPBHAI KHIMABHAI CHAVDA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application. The respondent, Mokadiya Ajaiben Ramabhai, was served notice. The sole issue before the court was whether the delay in filing the application could be condoned. The court

LH OF DECD MAGANBHAI CHAMARBHAI PATELversusRAMANBHAI CHAMARBHAI PATEL

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

In a second appeal (No. 6933/2025) arising from Civil Application No. 6120 of 2025, the petitioners (LH of Deceased Maganbhai Chamarbhai Patel & others) sought relief against the respondents (Ramanbhai Chamarbhai Patel & others). The petitioners filed an application requesting condonation of the delay in preferring the

NITIN JAYANTILAL NAYAKversusMAYABEN DALPATBHAI PATEL

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners Nitin Jayantilal Nayak and others filed a civil revision (C/CRA/272/2013) against Mayaben Dalpatbhai Patel and others, seeking relief from an order of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 1340 of 2015. Both sides jointly requested the High Court to expedite the final hearing of the suit without the

KACHCHH DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTDversusPRAVINKUMAR VISHANJI THACKER

40-WITHDRAWN @ FH

The appellant Kachchh District Co-operative Bank Ltd filed a second appeal against the respondent, Pravinkumar Vishanji Thacker. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent died without any surviving class 1 heirs. The appellant moved the court to abate the appeal on this ground, seeking its disposal with a liber

MANOJKUMAR JAYANTILAL SHAH (IN FIR, MANOJKUMAR SHANTILAL SHAH)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Manojkumar Jayantilal Shah filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the main application. The applicant was represented by Mr. Nandish H. Thackar. The State of Gujarat, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave, opposed the condonation. The Hon'ble Justice J.C

MAHESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI GAJERAversusFULAJI MALAJI SOLANKI

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners filed a civil revision seeking expedited disposal of Regular Civil Suit No.132 of 2024. The learned advocate for the petitioners requested the court to order a speedy trial without delving into the merits of the impugned order. The High Court, after hearing the request, directed the trial judge to decid

PATEL AMRUTLAL BECHARDASversusNAVNEETLAL JAYANTILAL PATEL

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant filed a second appeal (R/Misc. Civil Application No. 2722 of 2025) seeking to have the main matter restored to its original file. The court examined the application filed by the petitioner. No detailed factual or legal arguments were recorded in the order. The court concluded that the application should b

STATE OF GUJARATversusANKIT DILIPBHAI MAKVANA

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a second appeal (No. 35386/2025) against Ankit Dilipbhai Makvana. The applicant sought condonation of delay in preferring the main application. The court examined the averments made in the application. Finding them satisfactory, the court allowed the application. Consequently, the delay in fi

CHATURSINH SULTANJI ZALAversusNEHALBEN DINESHBHAI NATHANI W/O BHAVESH NARSINGANI

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Chatursinh Sultanji Zala, filed a second appeal before the Gujarat High Court against a decree involving Nehalben Dineshbhai Nathani and others. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Harshit S. Bhatt, applied for permission to withdraw the appeal. The court considered whether it could allow the withdrawal of a pe

AMIBEN KALPESHKUMAR BHAVSARversusKALPESHKUMAR PRAFULBHAI BHAVSAR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Amiben Kalpeshkumar Bhavsar filed a special criminal application seeking restoration of the main criminal matter against Kalpeshkumar Prafulbhai Bhavsar and another. The High Court examined the application and considered whether the proceedings could be reinstated in the original file. The Court held that the restorati

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search