The Gujarat High Court questioned former cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan’s occupation of a government plot in Vadodara despite refusal of allotment approval. The Court indicated he could face liability for unauthorized possession and compensation for use of public land.
The Supreme Court held that loss of case records cannot justify keeping a criminal investigation pending indefinitely, expressing concern over a nearly two-decade delay. Setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, it directed Gujarat Police to complete the investigation within six weeks to protect the right to a speedy trial.
The Supreme Court questioned the legal basis for claiming exemption from court fees while hearing a plea challenging a Gujarat High Court ruling. The High Court had upheld the rejection of waqf suits filed without payment of the prescribed court fees.
The Gujarat High Court recommended criminal contempt proceedings against suspended Additional District Judge GR Soni, observing that his allegations against a senior judge amounted to interference with judicial proceedings and obstruction of justice, thereby constituting “criminal contempt”.
The Gujarat High Court objected to a girl student’s attire, stating that dignity and decorum of the court must be upheld. The Bench questioned her clothing, sparking a tense exchange as she challenged IIT Gandhinagar’s disciplinary action.
Gujarat High Court upheld maintenance order, holding able-bodied husband must support ailing wife. Court ruled financial setbacks cannot override duty under Section 125 CrPC, affirming Rs 50,000 monthly payment ordered by Family Court.
Gujarat High Court dismissed appeals by Asaram ashram against land takeover in Ahmedabad. Court upheld acquisition of Motera land near Narendra Modi Stadium for proposed Sardar Patel Sports Complex.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to a law student accused of impersonating an advocate and misappropriating around Rs.80 lakh from multiple victims. The Court remarked, “It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished.”
The Gujarat High Court held that an LLB qualification cannot be used to deny a divorced woman her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court stressed that education alone cannot negate financial dependence entirely.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Arvind Datar and KK Venugopal urged the Supreme Court to close the long-pending contempt case against Yatin Oza. They argued that Oza has already faced enough punishment and his repeated apologies should be accepted to restore normalcy.
