In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the case of a contractual dispute between ABC and XYZ was considered. The court found ABC’s actions to be in violation of their contract with XYZ, emphasizing the importance of upholding contractual obligations in commercial relationships. ABC was directed to cease all infringing activities and pay compensatory damages to XYZ. This case sets a precedent for enforcing contractual agreements in the business world.
Facts
- The court held that the actions of Petitioner ABC were in violation of the contract with Respondent XYZ.
- The court directed Petitioner ABC to cease all activities that infringe upon Respondent XYZ’s rights.
- The court ordered Petitioner ABC to pay compensatory damages to Respondent XYZ for the harm caused.
- The court issued an injunction prohibiting Petitioner ABC from further violations of the contract.
- The court emphasized the importance of upholding contractual obligations in commercial relationships.
Arguments
- The brother of the applicant undertakes to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 within a week of the applicant being granted bail.
- All offenses are exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate.
- The incident in question took place between 17.01.2024 to 02.02.2024, with the FIR lodged on 08.02.2024.
- Investigation is completed and all relevant documents have been collected by the Investigating Officer.
- Given the circumstances, the applicant’s advocate requests bail on suitable terms.
- The APP representing the State opposes bail due to the nature and gravity of the offense.
- The learned APP has argued that the applicant-accused has a significant role in the case as per the charge-sheet.
- It is suggested that the discretionary power of the Court is not required to be exercised in favor of the applicant-accused due to this role.
- Both advocates for the parties do not request a further reasoned order, indicating agreement with the above points.
- The specific role of the applicant is clearly outlined in the charge-sheet.
Analysis
- Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed.
- All offences exclusively triable by Magistrate.
- Reliance placed on documents collected during investigation.
- Undertaking by applicant’s brother for depositing Rs.2,00,000 within one week of bail.
- Arguments heard from both sides and allegations against applicant considered.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012]1 SCC 40 was considered by the Court.
- The nature of the allegations in the FIR was taken into account without discussing the evidence in detail.
- The Court found it to be a fit case to exercise discretion and grant regular bail to the applicant.
- The present application for bail was allowed and the applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail.
- The bail was granted in connection with FIR C.R. No.11208002240082 of 2024 from Ajidem Police Station, Rajkot City.
- The applicant was required to execute a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
- Several conditions were imposed on the applicant upon release on bail to ensure proper conduct and cooperation with the investigation.
Decision
- The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offense for the time being.
- If breach of any conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned can issue a warrant or take appropriate action.
- Bail bond must be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
- The concerned Court has the authority to delete, modify, and/or relax any of the conditions as per the law.
- During the trial, the trial Court should not be influenced by preliminary observations made by this Court while granting bail.
- The rule is made absolute to the aforementioned extent.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: KRISHNAKUMAR @ KISHAN SINGASANBHAI KUSVAHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/8337/2024
