Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 51]Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5XXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 51]
Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
XXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
Organization for Verdant Ambience and Land (OVAL) Trust v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. State Of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
Ikba s/o Chandulal Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. v. Executive Engineer 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Additional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
M/s. Apna Chemist v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3) & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
General Motors Employees Union v. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
Nitin Damodar Dhaberao v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
Rahul Jain v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
Satish Buba Shetty v. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
M/s. Terna Polytechnic v. Ravi Bhadrappa Randale 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr v. BITS 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v. Extra Tech World and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. UoI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Sunil s/o late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts v. Deputy Director of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Neelam Ajit v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
XYZ v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
XXX v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
Association for Protection of Civil Rights v. Municipal Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
Gopal Dinkar Vanave and Anr. v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Kunal Kamra v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
Kunal Kamra v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
Reports/Judgments
Former IT Analyst Of TCS With Supervisory Responsibilities Not Workman: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former IT analyst of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) observing that the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the judgment, Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's order which held it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case since the petitioner Rohit Dembiwal was not a workman. The petitioner had challenged his alleged wrongful dismissal by the company in 2011.
The court held that the petitioner was involved in managerial, supervisory or administrative functions like approving leave/timesheets of team members, handling their reimbursements, reviewing their appraisals, taking business decisions etc., indicating he is not a mere 'workman'.
Case Title: Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mirza Himayat Baig arrested in 2010 for allegedly being a Lashkar – E - Taiba operative and participating in a terror conspiracy in Nashik.
Baig is already serving a life sentence in the German Bakery Blast Case.
A division bench headed by Justice Revati Mohite Dere granted bail to Baig on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.
Case Title: M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
Bombay High Court held that an employee is entitled to receive subsistence allowance during suspension as per Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, without any condition imposed by the employer requiring the employee to mark daily attendance at the workplace.
Subsistence allowance is given to an employee to maintain himself and his family during suspension in the absence of a salary.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav in a writ petition filed by Hindustan Level Employees Union challenging an award passed by the Labour Court in Daman rejecting the Union's claim for payment of subsistence allowance to its member Natubhai Patel.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
The Bombay High Court held that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her first husband after divorce under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA) despite remarrying.
Justice Rajesh Patil observed that there is no condition under section 3(1)(a) of MWPA disentitling a Muslim woman from getting maintenance after remarriage.
“The protection referred to in the MWPA is unconditional. Nowhere does the said Act intend to limit the protection that is due to the former-wife on the grounds of the remarriage of the former-wife. The essence of the Act is that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage. The fact of divorce between the husband and wife is in itself sufficient for the wife to claim maintenance under section 3 (1) (a)”, the court held.
Case Title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav accused of cheating a client by presenting a forged sessions court bail order for her husband in a murder case.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that it is a serious offense extending beyond the immediate victim, affecting the public's faith in the legal system and thus, no leniency could be granted to the accused.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court held that a woman residing in the matrimonial home would also be entitled to maintenance to meet her basic expenses. The court dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the interim maintenance granted by a Family Court to his estranged wife and minor son.
The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 10,000 for their 10-year-old son.
Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child.”
Case Title: Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High Court held that a complaint filed by a mother-in-law (MIL) against her daughter-in-law (DIL) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is maintainable. However, it quashed the complaint against the daughter-in-law's father and brother.
“While the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act,” the judge observed.
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale partly allowed a petition filed by the DIL, her father and brother challenging a DV complaint filed by the woman's MIL before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon, Satara.
Case Title: Organization for Verdant Ambience and Land (OVAL) Trust v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court granted permission to the Kala Ghoda Association (KGA) with certain riders to hold its annual arts and culture events at Cross Maidan in South Mumbai from January 20 – 28, 2024 as part of the Kala Ghoda Arts Festival.
A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal R Khata further dispensed with the necessity for the association to apply to the High Court every year, so long as they comply with the necessary conditions.
Among other conditions, the court said the permission is subject to an undertaking similar to the one it had given in 2018.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. State Of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
The Bombay High Court allowed a man with 83% physical disability accused in a cheating and corruption case and residing in Panipat, Haryana, to attend the pronouncement of judgment in his trial via video conferencing.
Justice MS Karnik held that the same direction passed by the High Court in November 2023 while exempting the man from physical presence in Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for recording of evidence will apply for the pronouncement of judgment.
Case Title: Ikba s/o Chandulal Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that a High Court, while entertaining a criminal revision application, can suspend the sentence of convicts even if they have not surrendered.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed that when appeal against conviction has failed but the convict has not surrendered, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction has the discretion to either suspend the sentence or direct execution of sentence.
If the accused is seeking to misuse the process, the High Court can direct his arrest, but it would be independent of the issue regarding maintainability of the revision, the court added.
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. v. Executive Engineer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The State cannot cite delay in approaching the court to absolve itself of its responsibility towards those whose private property has been “expropriated” or taken for public use without compensation, the Bombay High Court held.
It ruled in favour of urban landowners who approached the court in 2021, nearly four decades after an electricity sub-station was built on their land.
A division bench comprising Justices BP Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan ordered the Collector of Thane to compute compensation payable to Damodarprasad Bhadani's family under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 for their 6685 sq meters of land utilized by the electricity board in 1984.
Case Title: Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Additional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Observing that the facts of the case were prima facie “shocking,” the Bombay High Court has stayed the notice to demolish 'Sai Resort' in Raigad district owned by Sadanand Kadam, a close aide of Shiv Sena (UBT) faction member and former Maharashtra cabinet minister – MLC Anil Parab.
Petitioner Sadanand Gangaram Kadam assailed a demolition notice dated December 6, 2023 issued against him. Kadam claimed he had developed the resort after obtaining non-agriculture (NA) permission on August 3, 2021 from the Sub Divisional Officer.
The dispute began with the purchase of the land at Khed by a partnership firm M/s Sai Star Distributors, of which the petitioner and Vijay Bhosale were partners, along with three others. By a consent award dated May 6, 2017, disputes between the partners were settled and Bhosale retired from the firm, with the Khed land entitlement coming to the petitioner.
The High Court noted that the private complaint by Vijay Bhosale regarding the Khed land was not prima facie maintainable at all, after he had retired from the firm.
Case Title: M/s. Apna Chemist v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3) & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court admonished the State government, the appellate authority against drugs licence suspension orders, stating that a decision must not be kept pending for so long that it becomes a case of 'operation successful, patient dead'.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla observed that the inaction in deciding the appeals and stay applications would violate the right to carry out trade of the appellants facing suspension of their licence.
The court observed that the appellate authority, responsible for adjudicating statutory appeals, must be alive to the consequences that the order under appeal could have on the appellant. The court emphasized that remedy provided in law must be effective and observed that the inaction of the appellate authority could impact the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, read with Articles 14, 21, and 300A.
Case Title: General Motors Employees Union v. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court upheld Industrial Tribunal's order allowing automotive manufacturing company General Motors to close its plant in Talegaon, Maharashtra, after noting accumulated loss of Rs. 9656.87 Crores till 2022.
Justice Milind Jadhav dismissed two writ petitions by General Motors Employees Union challenging Industrial Court's orders allowing General Motors India Private Limited to close down its Talegaon MIDC plant under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The court clarified that the Apex court decision in Vazir Glass Works Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (1996), cited by the employee union, is limited to cases where the Review and consequential Reference are made after one year from the date of the rejection of Closure Application. If the Reference is made within one year, it would be valid even if it is actually heard and disposed, after the expiry of one year, the court held. It cited various subsequent decisions establishing that the time frames mentioned in Sections 25-O(6) and 25-O(4) are 'directory' and 'not mandatory.'
Case Title: Nitin Damodar Dhaberao v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a 13-year-old child observing that they had a love affair, and the alleged sexual relationship appears to be out of attraction and not lust.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur Bench observed that the girl stated that she voluntarily left her house and stayed with the accused who is also of a 'tender' age of 26 years.
“Thus it is apparent that, out of the love affair, she joined the company of the present applicant. The applicant is also of a tender age of 26 years and out of love affair they come together. It seems that, the alleged incident of sexual relationship is out of the attraction between the two young persons and it is not the case that applicant has subjected the victim for a sexual assault out of lust”, the court observed.
Case Title: Rahul Jain v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court took strong exception against the civic body's responses to a potential fire hazard owing to stacked parking, blocking the access to a building in Borivali.
The court pointed out that merely because the builder had paid a premium to the civic body for additional construction, fire safety could not be abandoned.
"The suggestion that every violation, transgression or deviation from well established safety norms can be condoned in exercise of discretionary powers simply by taking money is so utterly reprehensive, we dare say that no court would countenance it.”
Case Title: Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court held that even assuming that there was a defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee, and the assessee “clearly understood” what the purport and import of the notice were under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract form.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the assessee at no earlier point in time had raised a plea that, on account of a defect in the notice, the assessee was put to any prejudice. The Court observed that a violation will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. If the case of the assessee is that the assessee was prejudiced and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter.
Case Title: Satish Buba Shetty v. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
The Bombay High Court allowed refund of stamp duty for a flat purchase agreement to a man in his late 60s despite cancellation of the agreement beyond the limit of 5 years under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as the developer neither developed the building nor cancelled the agreement in time.
Justice NJ Jamadar observed that the petitioner had diligently pursued remedies before RERA and the delay in executing the Cancellation Deed was not attributable to him. Impossibility of performance of a statutory condition is a ground to relieve a person from penalty, he said.
“High Court in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be denuded of the power to delve into the question as to whether the non-compliance of the stipulation as to time was brought about by factors which were beyond the control of the affected party and to insist performance would have amounted to compelling such party to do impossible and, thus, relieve such party of the hardship in deserving cases, where injustice is writ large. In the backdrop of the circumstances which are adverted to above, refusal to grant refund would be wholly unjust and unconscionable”, the court held.
Case Title: M/s. Terna Polytechnic v. Ravi Bhadrappa Randale
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court held that when an employee is transferred from one institute to another of the same management with continuity in service, gratuity will be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary at the time of final cessation of service.
Justice Sandeep V Marne held that there would be no bifurcation of the gratuity amount based on last drawn salary in individual spells of service in the distinct institutes.
The court dismissed four writ petitions filed by employers challenging the entitlement to gratuity of an employee who was transferred Terna Polytechnic, Navi Mumbai to Terna Engineering College, Navi Mumbai, and finally resigned from the latter.
“Once it is held that the two spells of services in Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College are interconnected, cessation of service for the purpose of payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act would occur on 21 July 2011 when Respondent resigned from the services of Terna Engineering College…There is nothing on record placed to prove that there was termination/cessation of services with Terna Polytechnic on account of resignation from services. Thus Respondent is entitled to gratuity on the basis of last wages drawn as on 21 July 2011 from Terna Engineering College in respect of his entire service from 17 September 1992 to 21 July 2011”, the court held.
Merely Commenting About Lack Of Woman's Cooking Skills Not 'Cruelty' U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court ruled that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
“In the instant case, the only allegation levelled against these Petitioners is that they had commented that Respondent No.2 does not know how to cook. Such comment does not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
A division bench comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice N.R. Borkar quashed an FIR registered under section 498A against two brothers-in-law for allegedly commenting that the complainant did not know how to cook.
The court observed that petty quarrels do not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498A. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.
Case Title: M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
The Bombay High Court held that banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) are not obligated to initiate restructuring process before classifying accounts of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in the absence of any application from the MSMEs seeking restructuring.
A division bench of Justice BP Collabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye held that notification dated May 29, 2015, under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) allowing for restructuring only applies when MSMEs approach the banks/NBFCs.
The court dismissed a group of writ petitions challenging the classification of the accounts of petitioner MSMEs, who have taken financial assistance from banks and NBFCs, as NPAs under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The challenge was on the ground that the respondent banks/NBFCs did not adhere to the procedure for restructuring outlined in the notification before classifying the MSMEs as NPAs.
Aviation Safety Norms Can't Be Relaxed For Public Authority: Bombay High Court Refuses Height Relaxation For MHADA High Rise Near Mumbai Airport
Case Title: Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court rejected Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority's (MHADA) writ petition seeking relaxation of height restrictions for a 40-floor building near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) in Mumbai.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata observed that aviation safety has nothing to do with the identity of the developer, and no relaxation of civil aviation safety norms can be granted merely because the project is proposed by a public authority.
Bombay High Court Dismisses 'Unsavory' PIL Seeking To Reduce MLAs' Salaries And Perks
Case Title: Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking reduction in perks and salaries of MLAs in Maharashtra, citing a previous judgment wherein it was held that this is a policy decision outside the domain of the court.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor criticized the petition, observing that it was full of generalized and unsavoury statements against all MLAs.
Case Title: Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr v. BITS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
The Bombay High Court set aside the punishment of cancellation of semester imposed on two students of Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Goa campus, for their involvement in the theft of items from stalls during a conference at the institute.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice MS Sonak instead directed the students to do two months of community service at an old age home in Goa.
The court held that the punishment given by the institute was disproportionate and against the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines, which emphasize reform over punitive action for student misconduct.
“Every student has the right to seek redressal from the Court of law, and the fact that students might take recourse to Courts of law cannot be a valid consideration not to revisit the penalty imposed by adhering to the UGC guidelines, which emphasises the reformative element,” the court emphasized.
Case Title: Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Bombay High Court held that a vehicle being hypothecated to a bank does not make the bank liable for procuring vehicle insurance or paying accident compensation.
Justice Shivkumar Dige dismissed an appeal against order directing vehicle owner to pay compensation to kin of deceased in a motor accident case observing –
“Mere vehicle was hypothecated to the bank, cannot be a ground to shift liability of paying compensation on the said bank. It was obligatory on the owner of vehicle to take insurance policy of the vehicle. The accident caused due to negligence of the Appellant. Hence bank cannot be hold liable to pay the compensation mere hypothecation with it.”
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court convicted and sentenced a man to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for bringing a 14-year-old girl to a red-light area in Nashik with the intention of inducing her into the business of prostitution.
Justice PK Chavan observed that the cases of inducing minors for the purpose of prostitution are on the rise, and the convict, one Vijay Bhika Dive, does not deserve sympathy.
“The offences committed by the respondent – accused are indeed serious and have it's impact on the society…It appears that the victim had reposed trust upon the respondent – accused since she used to call him as Mama. Of late, there is a rise in the cases under The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956…There respondent – accused herein had indeed committed the aforesaid offences and, therefore, he does not deserve sympathy. In order to curb such social evil, some deterrence is required”, the court observed.
The court allowed State's appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused by the sessions court and convicted him under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the IPC, and Section 5 (procuring, including or taking person for prostitution) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Case Title: Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Days after the Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL), the longest sea-bridge in India, the Bombay High Court declared that the land acquisition proceedings for a part of the project had lapsed.
While this would mean possession of the 7.13 hectares land should revert back to its original owner, in the present case, the owners agreed to accept compensation recalculated under the new Land Acquisition Act 2013.
“Once this is the statement made by Mr. Thakur, we hold that even though we have opined that the acquisition has lapsed, possession of the acquired lands shall not revert to the Petitioners, and they will only be entitled to compensation for their lands, and which shall be determined by the State by passing a fresh Award/s qua the Petitioners after following the procedure and the provisions as laid down under the 2013 Act.”
Case Title: Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Observing that “stereotypical and generalising” observations on the behaviour of transgender persons was “uncalled for,” the Bombay High Court granted bail to four transgender persons accused of harassing and assaulting a devotee at the Vitthal-Rukmini Temple in Pandharpur last month.
Justice Madhav J Jamdar noted that the observations were not even required for adjudication of the bail application.
“Transgenders are citizens of this country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of all citizens. The right to life includes right to live with dignity. Therefore, the observations which are recorded in Paragraph Nos.19 to 21 of the said impugned Order should not have been recorded and are not required or material for consideration of a Bail Application.”
The allegations included demanding money, assault and forcible disrobing owing to which the transgender persons were booked under sections 353, 332, 294, 143, 147, 149 of the IPC and section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Case Title: Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court quashed Mumbai University's decision to declare a student as ineligible for the 3-year LL.B. course after he had already completed two out of six semesters.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain emphasized that the students must be timely informed of their eligibility status, to avoid students investing time, money, and energy in a course only to be informed of ineligibility at a later stage.
Case Title: UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v. Extra Tech World and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
The Bombay High Court passed an ex-parte interim injunction against known and unknown entities allegedly operating fake websites that purport to provide PAN card services on behalf of government owned UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited (UTIITSL).
The court noted the "national importance" of PAN services and said any potential misuse of the authorization would be "highly detrimental" to UTIITSL and the national interest. It accepted UTIITSL's contention that unknown entities were infringing its copyright in the PAN card label and passing off its trademarks by masquerading as authorized agents.
“On consideration of the necessary information provided in the Interim Application, the plaintiff/applicant deserves an ad-interim ex-parte order even without service, as it is impossible to track all the defendants and effect service upon them, and with the fake websites being continued to be active, it would cause irreparable damage and severe compromise of valuable confidential data of the plaintiff and also pose a threat at a national level,” the court observed.
The order was passed by Justice Bharati Dangre on an interim application filed by UTIITSL in a copyright infringement and passing off suit against four identified defendants.
Case Title: Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court held that a change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order contain references and/or discussions to disclose its satisfaction with respect to the query raised. The only requirement is that the assessing officer ought to have considered the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act during the original assessment proceedings
Case Title: Sunil s/o late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court observed that the trial court, while convicting former Congress MLA Sunil Kedar, made observations contrary to presented evidence and ignored that Kedar himself lodged the FIR.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench suspended the sentence of Kedar, convicted in a bank scam case of over Rs. 153 Crores, stating that Kedar has raised arguable points in his appeal against conviction.
“the observation of the trial court, that no step are taken to take action, is also contrary to the evidence as the applicant (Sunil Kedar) has lodged the First Information Report prior to registration of the crime. The specific admission by the investigating officer suggesting no evidence came before him showing any transactions between the applicant and HTL indicates that the observation of the trial court showing his involvement in the conspiracy is contrary to the evidence”, the court observed.
The trial court concluded that there was a conspiracy between Kedar and officers of HTL. However, the High Court pointed out that this is contrary to the investigating officer's admission that Kedar neither invested the amount for his personal gain, nor is he anyway concerned with the transfer of that amount.
Case Title: Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students opposing Maharashtra government's notification that designates January 22, 2024, as a public holiday to mark the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
A special bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that in a country of diverse religions, the impugned decision of the State in fact fosters the principle of secularism. Referring to a catena of precedents on the subject of public holidays, the bench said,
"A consistent view has been taken by the Courts that the declaration of holidays is a matter of executive policy including those which are declared considering the requirements of the different religions. Once these are the considerations on broader public interest, such decisions cannot be in any manner labelled as arbitrary decisions. Moreover such decision is taken by the executive in fostering the sentiments as enshrined in the Constitution and in recognition of the secular principles when a holiday is being declared on any religious occasion."
The bench relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court whereby a petition challenging the concession granted by the State to allow students to cover during summer holidays for leaves taken during Ramzaan, was dismissed. It was held that different religions are followed in the State and the concession does not impede the spirit of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
High Court noted that even the Supreme Court has observed that declaration of public holidays is within the realm of executive policy.
Case Title: Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court refused to quash a case registered against a Bandra resident for allegedly ordering the felling of a Tamarind tree without prior permission, resulting in the death of several birds and the destruction of their eggs.
Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak dismissed the criminal application filed by Amit Dhutia observing that prima facie a case was made out against Dhutia.
The case was initiated on a complaint filed against Abhishek Soparkar Dhutia who was booked under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, along with Sections 9 and 51 of The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Sections 8 and 21 of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 registered with Khar Police Station, Mumbai.
It was alleged he had affected the illegal chopping of a Tamarind tree located inside the compound of Petit School near the applicant's residential society building (Nector CHSL). It was alleged that such felling caused injury to birds and destruction of their nests.
Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Goa Cess Act
Case Title: Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Bombay High Court upheld the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 (Goa Cess Act). The Act imposes cess on carriers transporting scheduled materials including coal, coke, sand, debris, garbage, packaged water, mineral ore etc. in Goa.
The court accepted the state's argument that materials listed in the Act's schedule cause pollution and emphasized the state's responsibility to balance economic interests and development with the preservation of natural resources and environmental protection. It held that the state had legislative power to enact laws addressing adverse effects on health caused by human activities.
Case Title: Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals accused of cheating the Forest Department out of booking amount received from tourists for online booking of jungle safari in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench, while rejecting anticipatory bail application of Abhishek and Rohitkumar Thakur, partners of the firm Wild Connectivity Solutions (WCS), observed –
“Considering the role of applicants in the crime having involved enormous and huge amount, siphoning of the amount and fabrication of digital data, and the investigation revealing the manner in which the forest department is duped and the government money is at stake, the role of the applicants is clearly exposed. In the background of accusations and its gravity, applicants are not entitled for being released on bail in the event of their arrest.”
The applicants are accused under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
The Bombay High Court issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda (Fort), Rakesh Garg, in a testamentary matter wherein a spinster bequeathed her movable assets to her caretaker.
Justice Manish Pitale passed the order in an interim application filed by the 49-year-old caretaker who alleged that despite a probated Will in his favor, three banks were refusing to cooperate.
Previously, the court had issued notices to all three banks. While counsel appeared for Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Central Bank of India (CBI) on January 3, 2024, and assured cooperation from their end, none appeared for Bank of Baroda.
The court noted that neither of the banks had filed responses and that there was still no representation from the Bank of Baroda.
Accordingly, the court granted PNB and CBI a last chance to file their affidavits in the matter and issued an NBW against the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda.
Case Title: Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
The Bombay High Court held that alleged offences which are under investigation, and for which a chargesheet has not been filed cannot be considered for passing an externment order against the accused.
Justice NJ Jamadar quashed and set aside an externment order against one Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad observing that the externing authority considered two crimes against him even though the charge sheets had not been filed yet.
Case Title: Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts v. Deputy Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
The Bombay High Court held that the AO has no jurisdiction to assess or reassess any income, which was the subject matter of an appeal.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that since the grant of benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was the subject matter of appeal and has been held in favour of the assessee, the matter cannot be reopened.
Case Title: Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
The Bombay High Court accepted the Maharashtra Government's statement that they have not yet made a final decision about building a theme park or renewing the lease of the turf club on the 221-acre Mahalaxmi Racecourse.
A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata refused to immediately interfere with the Chief Minister's statement dated December 6, 2023, directing the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC), to hold an extraordinary general body meeting on January 31, 2024, and vote on a proposal for new terms of their lease. The lease of RWITC which runs the racecourse, expired in 2013.
Observing it could not pre-empt or ask the State to make a decision one way or the other, the court clarified all contentions were kept open.
Case Title: Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that music rights holders like Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex are copyright owners and can issue music licenses even if they are not registered as copyright societies under Section 33(1) of the Copyrights Act.
PPL and Novex are two companies that have acquired music assignments from producers like Tips, T-Series, Eros etc and are the exclusive licensees of these titles for the purpose of on-ground performance rights.
Justice R.I. Chagla ruled that "Section 33(1) of the Act cannot curtail the power of the owner to grant any interest in the copyright by license under Section 30 of the Act."
The court's decision grants greater flexibility to the companies and upholds the primacy of Section 30 which empowers copyright owners to grant licenses for their works. The court disagreed with the Madras HC's view in Novex Communications Vs. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd. which distinguished between granting licenses in an individual capacity and carrying on the business of licensing.
Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Accept Declaration Under VsV Act
Case Title: Neelam Ajit v. ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the department to accept the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VsV Act).
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes has observed that the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly 2,21,862. However, even if it is assumed that there was some marginal delay, this delay is attributable to the technical glitches and also the mistakes of the Respondents in processing the Petitioner's declaration.
The Petitioner/assessee filed a declaration under the VsV Act in Form 1 giving particulars of tax arrears and amounts payable in respect of the pending Income Tax dispute for Assessment Year 2017-18. Since the outstanding tax demand was 235,94,164/-, the amount under the VsV Act was computed at 14,04,620 after adjustment of the amount of 28,14,000, which the Petitioner already paid to the department.
Case Title: Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
The Bombay High Court held that the issue of voidness of a bequest under Section 67 Indian Succession Act in a Will due to the beneficiary being the spouse of the witness is outside the jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court in proceedings for Probate of Will or Letters of Administration with Will annexed.
Justice Manish Pitale rejected an application filed by the daughters of a deceased man seeking to add in a testamentary suit an additional issue pertaining to voiding the bequest to the son of the deceased as the daughter-in-law was the witness to the Will. The court said that this issue should be addressed in separate proceedings.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his nieces observing that even touching the penis to the victim's vagina with sexual intent constitutes the offence penetrative sexual assault on a minor under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
“…even in case of penetrative sexual assault, it is not essential that there must be some injury to the hymen, labia majora, labia minora of the victim. Mere touching of the penis to the private part of the victim constitutes an offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act…,” Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed.
The court interpreted phrases 'inserts or penetrates to any extent' mentioned in Section 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the POCSO, which describes penetrative sexual assault, to include touching of the reproductive organs. The minimum punishment for the offence is prescribed under Section 4 and is 20 years.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his daughter after finding that the complainant (wife of the accused) and her advocate, filed a false affidavit in the case.
Justice Madhav J Jamadar observed –
“This is a very serious case. Prima facie, the conduct of the Respondent No.2 (complainant) and the conduct of the learned Advocate Rohit Kumar amounts to interference in the administration of justice as false and fabricated affidavit is filed to oppose the grant of bail to the Applicant.”
The applicant's bail had earlier been cancelled by the sessions court based on certain WhatsApp messages, some of which contained indecent language and threats to Advocate Rohit Kumar.
Considering that the complainant presented a false affidavit in the HC while opposing the bail application, the court concluded that prima facie, there is every possibility that material was created, or the applicant was manipulated, in such a manner to prompt him to send those messages causing the cancellation of his bail.
Case Title: Association for Protection of Civil Rights v. Municipal Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
The Bombay High Court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to ensure free treatment for all poor patients even if they don't have yellow and orange ration cards at its newly built 100-bed Hakim Ajmal Khan Hospital in Kausa-Mumbra.
A division bench comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Arif Doctor observed that people living in that locality were “disadvantaged” and came from economically weak backgrounds, making it the court's duty to ensure they enjoy the facility of affordable public health services so that their right to life with dignity can be ensured.
“Thus, it is now well settled that duty of the State as cast by Article 47 of the Constitution of India has to be taken aid of for giving full meaning to right to life enshrined as fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to life does not mean mere animal existence, it will encompass in it the right to live with dignity and if any citizen is deprived of affordable public health services, right to life with dignity cannot be ensured, it will rather be compromised.”
The court disposed of a clutch of PILs filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights and others, seeking the court's intervention to ensure completion and proper functioning of the hospital project pending for over 15 years.
Case Title: Gopal Dinkar Vanave and Anr. v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
The Bombay High Court imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on developer Accord Builders for unilaterally allotting a rehab tenement without conducting a lottery process in the presence of a representative of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Slum Redevelopment Authority (SRA).
Justice Sandeep V Marne directed the allottees Gopal and Shekhar Vanave to vacate the tenement and dismissed their writ petition against SRA's declaration that the allotment of the tenement to them was invalid observing –
“I am aware of the fact that Petitioners will have to suffer on account of mistakes and illegalities committed on the part of Respondent No. 6-developer. However mere allotment and occupation of tenement No. D-1508 by Petitioners for sometime cannot be a ground to legitimate unauthorized allotment. It must be borne in mind that Respondent No. 4 is made to suffer for the last one and half years as she is unable to take possession of the tenement allotted to her…For inconvenience and loss suffered by Petitioners on account of vacation of tenement No. D-1508, Respondent No.6-developer is required to be saddled with exemplary costs for unauthorized allotment made by it to Petitioners.”
Case Title: Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive v. State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
The Bombay High Court ordered a man and his wife to vacate his elderly mother's house observing that it was unfortunate that the mother, in her twilight years, was ousted from her house by her son rather than receiving love and care.
“The feeling of being disowned by one of her sons itself has caused her a trauma. None of the parents should suffer this way. In one's life, there is much more than material things. Proud would be the parents of such children who would have their own achievements on all fronts and not look at the wealth and money of their old parents”, the court observed.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla lamented such legal battles, stating that they show that the world is not idealistic as greed is a bottomless pit.
“It also appears that the petitioner had entered the premises visiting the mother and later on refused to remove himself from the premises and obtained occupation of the premises by creating circumstances to achieve her removal from her own house. She could not have suffered a “living hell” in her own house…It appears that the petitioner also refused to maintain the mother and provide her basic medical needs apart from food and clothing requirements”, the court further observed.
With these observations, the court dismissed the son's writ petition challenging an order of the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal directing him to vacate the house.
The court emphasized that during the parents' lifetime, children cannot claim exclusive ownership or possession of their parents' property. In case other siblings are claiming rights in the premises the proper legal recourse for the petitioner would be filing a suit, and this cannot be during the lifetime of the mother, the court held.
Case Title: Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
The Bombay High Court rejected a construction company's claim that the dispute resolution clause in the General Conditions of Contract with Mumbai Municipal Corporation constituted a valid arbitration agreement due to a lack of mutual intention to arbitrate.
The court pointed out that the title "Finality of Decision and Non-Arbitrability" of the clause clearly indicates the parties did not intend for it to serve as an arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla further opined that mere declaration of the adjudication committee's decision as "final and binding" did not inherently indicate an intention to arbitrate.
The court added that the clause does not even make any reference to arbitration or appointment of an arbitrator, therefore, this dispute resolution clause did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
In a split judgement Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court said he would strike down Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules amendment 2023 empowering the government to establish a Fact check Unit and unilaterally declare online content related to the government's business on social media platforms as fake, false or misleading.
Calling it a form of "censorship", Justice Patel held that the amendment violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"What troubles me about the impugned 2023 amendment, and for which I find no plausible defence, is this: the 2023 amendment is not just too close to, but actually takes the form of, censorship of user content."
The court further stated that the amendment made the government the final decision maker of not just what was false of misleading but also of the right to have an opposing point of view.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
In a split judgement, Justice Neela Kedar Gokhale of the Bombay High Court said she would uphold the 2023 amendment to IT Rules, 2021 empowering the government to establish a Fact check Unit and declare online content related to the government's business on social media platforms as fake, false or misleading.
Justice Gokhale rejected the argument that the impugned Rule, by encompassing critical opinions, satire, parody, and criticism, renders it unconstitutional. She underscored that the Rule specifically addresses content that is fake, false, or misleading; not genuine opinions or expressions.
On the question of vagueness of the terms 'fake, false, and misleading' and 'business of the government', Justice Gokhale opined that the government is in the best position to provide correct facts regarding its business and the vagueness of the term by itself is not sufficient to strike down the entire Rule as ultra vires. She emphasized that the terms 'Fake,' 'False,' or 'Misleading' are to be understood in their ordinary sense.
Pointing out the challenges of the "infodemic" era, Justice Gokhale highlighted the threat posed by dissemination of false information and observed that the right to participate in democracy is meaningless unless citizens have access to authentic information and are not misled by misinformation knowingly communicated with malicious intent.
“Presently, the threat of disinformation and hoaxes has evolved from mere annoyance to warfare that can create social discord, increase polarisation and in some cases, even influence election outcome. State and non-state actors with geopolitical aspirations, ideological believers, violent extremists, and economically motivated enterprise can manipulate social media narratives with easy and unprecedented reach and scale”, Justice Gokhale observed.