qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer District Court Visit report tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas For the Subject of Litigation Management dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx

3/29/2014 Submitted BY: Ravindra Kumar Purohit cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio Submitted to: Mr. Anant doegoankar and Mr. Marisport A pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnSusumqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj

INTRODUCTION The District Court visit was made on 29th day of March, 2014 at the City Civil and Sessions Court (Bhadra), Ahmedabad. The visit has been made as an assignment in lieu of my absence in the special guest lecture conducted by Honble Judge Jyotsna Yagnik on the topic Session Case Management. The Court visit was a fruitful one for me to know the working of Courts and overall litigation management at the District level. I reached the Court at 11:00 am however, the Court proceedings were quite mild in the morning hours as it was a working Saturday.

ESTABLISHMENT The City Civil and Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad is a District Court which is entrusted with the territorial jurisdiction over the city and urban areas of the Ahmedabad District. The rural area of Ahmedabad District falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, (Mirzapur), Ahmedabad which is located quite near to the City Court. The City Court has been working since the British era whereby before independence, the Coram of the City Court was limited to two judges. The City Court used to work under the supervision of the Bombay High Court before the formation of State of Gujarat in 1960. After the formation of the Gujarat State, the administrative charge of the City Court was transferred to the Gujarat High Court. It is remarkable that the City Court works in the Bhadra Fort which was the governing headquarter of the then erstwhile ruler Sultan Ahmedshah Badshah. The campus of the Court i.e: Fort has been recognized as archeological site by the Archeological Survey of India.

JURISDICTION The City Court has subject-matter jurisdiction on areas of civil, criminal, revenue, electricity, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Cases) pertaining to terrorism, Motor Accident Claims, etc. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is unlimited in nature as the Gujarat High Court does not have original civil jurisdiction. The Court exercises both original as well as appellate jurisdiction over matters whereby appeals from the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and other forums are largely heard in the City Court. The Suits are filed in the form

of City Civil Case (CCC) as the nomenclature of the suits. The City Court campus also in houses 4 Special CBI Sessions Courts which are specially assigned CBI Courts designated for the entire State of Gujarat by the High Court of Gujarat. The jurisdiction of the Special CBI Courts is limited only to CBI prosecution cases pertaining to corruption matters, special cases of the Crime Branch Wing and Economic Offences Wing of CBI, etc. The City Court has 20 judges of the District Judge cadre out of which 19 judges have been entrusted with the Sessions cases charge, 15 judges have been entrusted with the civil cases and 13 judges have been entrusted with the Motor Accident Claims cases as per the Business Roaster of the City Court. The Principal Judge of the City Court is Honble Judge K.K. Bhatt whereas the Additional Principal Judge of the City Court is Honble Judge Geeta Gopi. The governing rules of the City Court are the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court Rules, 1961. .

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS COURT NO.2 (Court of Addl. Principal Judge and CBI Court No. 2) In the matter of CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai vs. J.G. Parmar and Ors.,1 in FIR No. RC No. BS1-S-2011-0005-C/2011, the matter pertaining to famous Ishrat Jahan Encounter had been scheduled for initiation of the prosecution and trial. The CBI recently filed the supplementary chargesheet against the Former Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau (IB) and other officers of IB arraigning them as additional accused in the case on the basis of further investigation conducted under S. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. As the Metropolitan Court is yet to take cognizance of the additional accused and commit them to Special Court (Court No. 2), the matter was adjourned on the demand of the CBI Prosecution Counsel as well as the Defence Counsel Mr. V.D. Gajjar. The matter would further proceed after a period of two weeks. In the matter of D.G. Vanzara vs. CBI (SIT), Gandhinagar,2 the bail application of suspended IPS Mr. D.G. Vanzara3 was scheduled for hearing on 29th March, 2014 in Ishrat Jahan Encounter

1 2

CBI Session Case No. 2/2013 CBI Criminal Miscellenous Application No. 23/2014

case. The CBI Prosecutor submitted the reply to the bail application. The Applicants Counsel Mr. V.D. Gajjar sought time for filling the affidavit-in-reply to the reply of the CBI and pleaded the Honble Court to post the matter for further hearing as the Supreme Court4 has granted bail to co-accused IPS officers in Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram Encounter Case on 28th March, 2014 just a day before the scheduled hearing in present case. The bail was granted to co-accused IPS officers by the Supreme Court (Full Bench) on the ground that the trial had not initiated even after seven years of arrest of the accused IPS officers and there was no scope of completion of trial in short time due to which continued incarceration of accused IPS officers would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of parity shall be applicable in connected or similar encounter cases. Accordingly, the Honble Court was convinced by stand of Mr. V.D. Gajjar, Applicants Counsel and held that on grounds of parity, the applicant Mr. D.G. Vanzara prima facie appears to be entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the Court posted the matter on further hearing and allowed the Applicants request for filling the Rejoinder Reply against CBI.

COURT NO. 15 (Honble Judge Shri H.C. Vora) In the matter of Dr. M.B. Parikh vs. Government of Gujarat, 5 the judgment and order was reserved by the Court on bail application of the applicant. The case pertains to commission of offence under S. 420, 467 and 471 of IPC whereby the Ahmedabad City Police had arrested the applicant before two months and thereafter the applicant has been in judicial custody. The Honble Court granted bail to the applicant accused under custody and upheld the contentions of Applicants Counsel Mr. V.D. Gajjar that the fulcrum of charge-sheet filed by Naroda Police Station did not had sufficient evidence to hold the applicant guilty and secondly, the applicant had been falsely implicated in a criminal case by the complainants due to pending civil litigation initiated by the applicant against the complainant.

3 4

Suspended DIG (Border Range, kuttchh-Bhuj, Gujarat) Coram: CJI P. Sathasivam J., N.V. Ramana and Ranjan Gogoi JJs. 5 Criminal Miscellenous Application No. 1218/2014

COURT NO. 10 (Honble Judge Shri K.J. Dasondi) In the matter of Harish Tejsingh vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors., 6 the matter pertained to setting aside of arbitral award under S. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Applicant was the original respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the claimant (respondents in present case) had initiated arbitration proceedings for recovery of a debt incurred by the applicant. The Applicants preliminary objection on aspect of jurisdiction of Arbitral tribunal to try the case was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there existed a dispute or difference as to financial debts which were indeed subject of arbitration agreement. The Tribunal finally rendered the decision in favour of respondent claimant bank. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant has challenged the entire arbitration proceedings as null and void as there was lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the case and the failure of applicant to pay the debt on time could not be interpreted to creation of a arbitral dispute. Applicants Counsel V.D. Gajjar submitted before the Honble Court the list of authorities comprising of various decisions of Supreme Court and other High Courts which provides the ratio as the failure of applicant to pay the debt on time could not be interpreted to creation of a dispute or difference triable by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Respondent Banks Counsel and Counsel for the Arbitrator sought time for further hearing. The Court accordingly fixed the matter for further hearing after one week.

COURT NO. 18 (Honble Judge Shri A.M. Vanani) In the matter of S.R. Sindhi vs. Raghavbhai Palsana, 7 the case pertained to a motor accident claim by the plaintiff against the respondent. The crux of the matter is that the respondent in 2004 had injured the plaintiff and damaged the vehicle of the plaintiff in a motor accident. The plaintiff accordingly filed an aggregate claim of ` 10,000/- against the respondent. The matter somehow was not called for hearing for few years. The matter was posted for hearing and final arguments of the plaintiff were to initiate. However, the junior for Counsel of the Plaintiff Mr. B.D. Shah sought an adjournment on the ground of sickness. The Respondents Counsel Mr.

6 7

Civil Miscellenous Application (DC) No. 714/2010 Motor Accident Claims Petition 416/2005

V.D. Gajjar considering the demand for adjournment as genuine consented to the request of Plaintiff. The Honble Court accordingly adjourned the matter. Hence, the overall learning experience derived from the Court visit to the City Court was salubrious to me.