Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024Nominal Index (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498): Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464Vijay Sapkale...
Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024
Nominal Index (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498):
Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463
Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
Sete Mares Global Forex Private Limited v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
Nandkishor Sahu vs Sanjeevani Patil, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
Miss XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
Dilkhush Shrigiriwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
Rahul Lahase vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
L vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
Uttam Value Steels Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
Mitesh Punmiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
Ramesh Gopnur vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
Syed Naeemuddin & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
Dr Sushant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
Santosh Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
Kunal Kamra vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
Dr Prashant Ahire vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, recently held that Maharashtra's former Chief Minister and the President of the divided Shiv Sena - Uddhav Thackeray did not hurt religious sentiments by not applying the sacred ash on his forehead, presented to him by a Mahant (Priest) during a public event in Nanded.
Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare also imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakhs on the petitioner - Mohan Chavan and has clearly told him to pay the said hefty amount to Thakceray, via a Demand Draft (DD).
Case Title: Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
The Bombay High Court held that the faceless mechanism would be applicable to all cases of Central Charges and International Taxation charges. However, the High Court clarified that it is only the assessment proceedings which would be required to be undertaken outside the faceless mechanism.
The Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “mandatory faceless procedure for issuance of notice u/s 148 falling within the purview of the scheme notified by the Central Government dated 29 March, 2022 would not exclude the Central charges and international taxation charges from the application of the faceless mechanism as notified u/s 144B read with section 151A of the Act”.
Case Title: Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463
The Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked for supporting and promoting 'Naxalism' through his WhatsApp messages and 'instigating' people against the existing Government of India by calling upon people to 'revive Naxalism' in the country.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke on August 2, noted that the applicant - Nitin Bode, an insurance agent, was booked for creating tension between two groups under section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case title: Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
The Bombay High Court on Friday transferred the investigation in the murder case of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray Faction) corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Ghosalkar, 41, was shot dead during a Facebook Live by his political rival Mauris Noronha on February 8, 2024. Soon after the incident, Noronha too allegedly committed suicide.
Pointing several lapses in the initial investigation conducted by the Mumbai Police, Ghosalkar's widow Tejaswee had moved a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak seeking transfer of the probe to either a special investigation team (SIT) or the CBI.
Even Appeal For Registering FIR Under SC/ST Act Will Have To Be Video Recorded: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that even the proceedings in an appeal seeking to register a First Information Report (FIR) under the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC ST), will be needed to be "video-recorded."
Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne while hearing a plea filed by one Vijay Sapkale, who sought to register an FIR against some private persons, while in an appeal, sought to video-record the proceedings.
Case Title: Sete Mares Global Forex Private Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
The Bombay High Court quashes reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while emphasizing that unauthorized transactions are made without requisite KYC of the purchasing party cannot be said to be a fresh fact which has come to light which was not previously disclosed which tends to expose the untruthfulness of the fact.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Valmiki Menezes observed that “Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on the fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place.”
Case Title: Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
Observing that the 'rising occurrence' of illegally constructed buildings has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure, the Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a developer booked for constructing an illegal building that collapsed in July this year, in Navi Mumbai,
Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha noted that the applicant - Mahesh Kumbhar, has been facing allegations of constructing a four-storey building without necessary permissions and using substandard materials, violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act.
Case Title: Nandkishor Sahu vs Sanjeevani Patil
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
The Bombay High Court recently held that a Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot cancel the 'gift deed' executed by a parent merely on the 'vague' allegations of 'non-maintenance' of the senior citizen by their children or the person, whom they have 'gifted' their property.
Single-judge Justice RM Joshi on August 29 quashed the December 2022 order of a Tribunal, which cancelled the 'gift deed' executed by a 73-year-old woman in favour of her elder daughter and husband, thereby, gifting two of her flats in Kolhapur to the elder daughter and husband. It noted that the senior citizen woman had made allegations that her elder daughter and her husband failed to keep their promise of maintaining her and deprived her of the basic physical need and other amenities.
Case Title: Miss XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
The Bombay High Court expressed 'disturbance' over the predicament of young women, who are 'compelled' to move the court to get their 'unwanted' pregnancies terminated medically and in all this, the court said it is only the women who 'suffer' and not their 'partners.'
Therefore, to provide 'succour' to such women, the division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale has decided to determine some mechanism to facilitate involvement, accountability and participation of the man or the partner of such women, in these 'testing times.'
Case Title: Dilkhush Shrigiriwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
Observing that he crossed all the limits of humanity, the Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur, recently upheld the conviction of a man for raping and impregnating a neighbourhood girl, who was suffering from Down syndrome.
Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted from the material on record that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant, who raped the victim having mental disability (90 per cent). The judge, noted that the accused, who is the neighbour of the victim took undue advantage of the situation.
Case Title: Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad on Tuesday dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Congress leader Shivaji Kalge to the 18th Lok Sabha, from Latur constituency in Maharashtra.
Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that the petitioner failed to prove its case as Kalge successfully established that he belonged to the SC category by submitting a 'caste validity certificate' issued by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee.
It went on to hold that merely alleging fraud in obtaining judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting validity to the caste certificate of the returned candidate is not sufficient as,
Case Title: Rahul Lahase vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court while acquitting a man convicted for raping a girl, observed that no prudent girl would ever go to a hotel room on her very first meeting with an unknown boy as the same would send "alarming" signals to the girl about the boy.
Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap refused to believe the version of the victim in a rape case, wherein the girl claimed to have met the convict through Facebook and thereafter started chatting and communicating with each other on the phone.
Case Title: L vs State of Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information of Report (FIR) lodged against a popular musician at Goa for allegedly raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, observed that the woman was 'sufficiently mature' to understand the consequences of such a 'consensual' relationship.
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki Menezes noted that the complainant in the case had stated that she met the petitioner musician at a music fest in Panaji in October 2023. Since then the duo became good friends and continued chatting on social media platform -Instagram.
Case Title: Uttam Value Steels Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
Since upon the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Assessee has changed hands and commenced under a new ownership and management, the Bombay High Court held that tax proceedings pertain to period prior to the CIRP, and consequent to the approval of the resolution plan, the tax proceedings stand extinguished.
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “provisions outlined in Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) stipulates that approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority is binding on Central Government and its agencies in respect of any statutory dues arising under any law for the time being in force, thus binding tax authorities and their enforcement actions”.
Case Title: Mitesh Punmiya vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 10) while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man under Section 294 IPC (Obscene acts and songs) noted that he was only shown to be 'encouraging' the women in the bar to dance in an 'obscene' manner.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale held that the mere 'encouraging' of women in the dance bar to dance in an obscene manner, will not attract provisions of section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench said that in order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 294, it is necessary that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place.
Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Convicted For Sexually Abusing Five Minor Girls
Case Title: Ramesh Gopnur vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 11) upheld the conviction and the life sentence imposed on a 40-year-old man, who was convicted for sexually abusing at least five minor girls.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan upheld the March 29, 2014 judgment of a special court in Thane, which convicted Ramesh Gopnur for raping five minor girls and sentenced him to life imprisonment under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the relevant provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Case title: Syed Naeemuddin & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed that the officers appointed by a government authority to detect and assess theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 are 'public servants' under Section 169 of the Act and thus a previous sanction of a concerned authority as provided in Section 197 CrPC is necessary before issuing process against such officers.
A single judge bench of Justice S.G. Mehare observed that “The appropriate government or the MSEB Board has authorized the Junior Engineer and linemen to find out the theft of the electricity. Since the persons who were authorized to detect the theft of the electricity and to provisionally assess the amount of theft, it can be accepted that such persons are covered under Section 169 of the Electricity Act, 2003.”
Case title: The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
The Goa Bench of the Bombay Hugh Court set-aside an order of the Children's Court, which discharged an accused for sexual assault against his daughter on the ground that she was not a minor under the Goa Children's Act on the day of the alleged incident.
Justice Bharat P. Deshpande was considering the State's revision application against the order of the Children's Court, which discharged the respondent/accused for child abuse/sexual assault under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Trustees Booked For Providing 'Bogus' Doctors To BMC-Run Hospital
Case Title: Dr Sushant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a doctor and trustees of a Trust that supplied 'bogus doctors' to a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) hospital situated in Mumbai's Mulund area, wherein 149 people allegedly died from 2018 till May 2023.
Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale granted bail to Dr Sushan Jadhav, Birendra Yadav and Deepak Jain - all booked under charges of murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, forgery, impersonation, fraud etc.
Case Title: Santosh Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a waiter in a Bar and Restaurant, where women are dancing in obscene manner, cannot be booked for the offence of 'obscenity' as s/he is merely performing their duty of serving food and drinks as per their employment profile.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against one Santosh Rodrigues, a resident of Malad in Mumbai, noted that he was working as a waiter in the New Park Side Bar and Restaurant as on April 14, 2016, when the Social Service Branch of the Mumbai Police conducted a raid and arrested several persons including the petitioner.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra vs Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
The Bombay High Court's 'Tie-Breaker' Judge Justice Atul Chandurkar, while opining that the amendments to the Information and Technology Rules, 2021 are 'unconstitutional' held that the citizens only have the 'right to free speech and expression' but not a 'right to truth' and thus the State cannot claim to have a responsibility to ensure that citizens know only 'truth' and not 'fake or false information.'
Case Title Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
The Bombay High Court Bench of Aurangabad has set aside the judgement of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to recount the marks of candidates who appeared for the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade-1) position test.
A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade observed that re-evaluation would modify the marks of candidates leading in an overall change in the merit list causing cancellation of appointment orders and resulting in the Commission being overburdened. Therefore, the Division Bench decided to treat one out of the two correct answers for awarding marks.
Bombay High Court Flags Rise In Frivolous Cases Against Doctors For 'Unjust' Compensation
Case Title: Dr Prashant Ahire vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while quashing a medical negligence case against a doctor, highlighted the increased rate of bogus prosecutions initiated against medical practitioners to extract 'unjust and uncalled for' compensation.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar noted that the applicant in the case was accused of prescribing an 'irrational combination' of modern medicines (allopathic medicines) despite him being an Ayurvedic practitioner.
Case Title: Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to a 42-year-old tailor, booked for allegedly conspiring and executing the serial bomb blasts in Pune in August 2012 for taking revenge of the custodial death of a terrorist of the banned Indian Mujahideen outfit.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the appellant Munib Memon has been in custody for around 11 and a half years since his arrest in December 2012.
Case title: Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of the allotment of 'Gairan land' by the District Collector to the Municipal Corporation for the construction of houses for economically weaker section of society under the 'Prime Minister Awas Yojana' on the ground that under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), the State government has the right to dispose of any government land, including 'gairan land'.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar was considering the petitioners' challenge to the District Collector's order, where a piece of land at Mauje Ravet, Taluka Haveli, Pune District was allotted to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 4) for development of affordable housing under the scheme of Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY).
Case Title: Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that just because the verification of input-output ratio was not submitted before the export of goods, it does not mean that same cannot be verified post export of goods.
While giving such relaxation, the Division Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the procedure for submitting input-output ratio is inconsequential for claiming rebate under Central Excise Act when the claim of petitioner/ assessee is only qua excise duty paid on chassis purchased and used in the manufacture of buses which are exported.
Initiating Tax Proceedings After CIRP Approval Violates Section 31 IBC: Bombay High Court
Case: Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
The Bombay High court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, it is binding on all creditors, including government authorities, such as the Income Tax Department.
A Division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni & Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasized that all claims, including tax liabilities that were not part of the approved resolution plan, are extinguished, and no fresh proceedings can be initiated for claims related to the period before the CIRP.
Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 23) while acquitting a husband convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her, held that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not attract in any and every harassment or type of cruelty. Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare sitting at Aurangabad held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish 'continuous' harassment.
Imprisonment Does Not Restrict Individual's Right To Pursue Education: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
The Bombay High Court recently observed that imprisonment of an individual does not restrict his or her right to education.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale made the observation while ordering a Mumbai-based Law College, to admit Mahesh Raut, one of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case, as a student for the LLB course for the academic year 2024-2027.
Case title: HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission to the HDFC Bank about a complaint raised by a member of the Jain community alleging harassment by the bank, on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande stated that the complaint was an attempt to 'short-circuit' the procedure adopted the HDFC bank against its borrowers. It noted that a member cannot approach the Commission only on the pretext of being a minority, in order to circumvent lawful orders passed by a competent authority.
Case title: Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
The Bombay High Court has directed a Government Medical College in Maharashtra to admit a candidate with disabilities to its MBBS course, who had inadvertently selected the 'no' option in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) column of the online application form and as a result was not examined for his disability status.
A division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Jusitce Kamal Khata noted that the petitioner's error was bonafide and unintentional. It observed that he has neither secured any undue advantage nor misled any authorities. Further, the error has not caused or does not have the potential of causing any prejudice to any candidate interested in obtaining admission to the PwD-OBC category.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that each forward of an objectionable post on WhatsApp or any other social media platform, cannot be interpreted to have been done to create unrest in the society or two groups of people.
The observation were made while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man, booked for forwarding an objectionable post against Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar to few of his WhatsApp contacts. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar said that people must exercise self restraint and avoid forwarding whatever they receive on their WhatsApp.
Case Title: Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
A minor girl subjected to sexual assault would normally be 'terrified' and not 'act normal and play', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court observed recently while acquitting a 64-year-old man convicted for sexually assaulting a minor girl. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted from the testimony of the girl's mother that the girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by the applicant in a Samaj Mandir (community hall) and when she went to the hall, the victim girl was playing.
Case Title: Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
The Bombay High Court held that deduction claimed by bank u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of write off bad debts is allowable without any adjustment to the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) which was adjusted with the bad debts claimed in the subsequent AY.
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “It is inconceivable that the amount of bad debts claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) could have any bearing so as to require any deduction/ subtraction from the provision for bad debts, made by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia)”.
Case Title: Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
A husband insisting a wife to live in the house where he lives with his paramour is a good enough reason for her to stay separately and this 'separation' cannot be regarded as the wife's 'free consent' to separation, to afford a ground to the husband to seek divorce under the Law of Divorce (Divorce Act, 1910), ruled the Bombay High Court at Goa, recently.
Single-judge Justice Makarand Karanik noted that the husband in the instant case, claimed that his wife abandoned him and refused to join the conjugal relationship in May 1993, which was just within a year of their marriage, which was registered in November 1992. The judge noted from the material on record that the husband was living his another woman, with whom he had an affair even prior to his marriage with the respondent wife and has two sons from her.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
While explaining that Section 43A is a non-obstante provision, which positively imposes an obligation notwithstanding anything contained in the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court held that losses due to exchange rate changes on a foreign currency loan taken for import of a capital asset must not be treated as revenue expenditure.
While explaining that Section 43A is a non-obstante provision, which positively imposes an obligation notwithstanding anything contained in the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court held that losses due to exchange rate changes on a foreign currency loan taken for import of a capital asset must not be treated as revenue expenditure.
Case title: Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
The Bombay High Court has observed that a plea of urgent interim relief by bypassing pre-litigation mediation as stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can be rejected only in cases of deception or falsity apparent from the plaint itself.
With respect IPR suits involving infringement or passing off, A single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stated that such suits could be ordinarily instituted without exhausting the pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the C.C. Act.
Case title: Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
The Bombay High Court has observed that in the absence of any dispute by a tenant about the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, the tenant cannot escape eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act if the rent has not been paid within the specified time.
A single judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne further observed that a Trial Court cannot look into the issue of 'readiness and willingness to pay rent' of the tenant, if there is no dispute about the amount of rent payable.
Other orders/Observations:
The Bombay High Court recently made it clear that henceforth it will not adjourn matters and criticised the 'robotic approach' especially of the Maharashtra Government and other authorities for seeking adjournments on the ground of filing affidavits-in-reply.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somashekar Sundaresan said henceforth it will impose costs on advocates, especially those representing the State or its authorities, to seek adjournments for filing affidavits.
The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered the Maharashtra Police to pull down the videos of controversial self-styled godman Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, wherein, he has made some objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad, thus hurting the sentiments of the Muslim community.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan gave an oral order to the Police on a request made by advocate Ejaz Naqvi, who pointed out that the 'controversial' video is all over the social media platforms and the same might create communal tension.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea filed by senior NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) leader Jitendra Awhad, who has sought clubbing of the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against him for allegedly tearing the photograph of Dr BR Ambedkar while staging a protest to the Maharashtra government's decision to include Manu Smriti's controversial writings in the syllabus of the primary schools.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan issued notice and made the same returnable after two weeks.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, while hearing the suo motu PIL regarding sexual assault of two kindergarten students in a school in Badlapur, Thane, reiterated that the Maharashtra Government must teach the boys about the right and wrong, saying 'Beta Padhao aur Beti Bachao' (Educate The Son To Protect The Daughter).
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan reiterated the need to teach the boys at a younger stage on respecting women and girls.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to decide by September 18, the representations, if any made by the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat or any other group or individual, objecting to the release of the controversial film Emergency.
A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla opined that the CBFC has no powers to get into the issue of deciding representations or any unrest to the release of the film, however, it refused to pass any direction to the CBFC for immediate issuance of the certification citing "judicial propriety."
The Bombay High Court has directed the State government to file a reply as to why the Chairman and members of the Maharashtra State Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have not been appointed since December, 2020. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar heard the matter and issued notice to the respondent-State.
Regarding the ban on animal slaughter and meat sales during the Jain festival of Paryushan Parva, the Bombay High Court has granted leave to the petitioners (Jain Charities) to challenge the Government Notification of June 2019, which prohibited slaughtering and sale of meat only on the first and last day of the festival.
The division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar on 29 August had ordered all the municipal corporations in Maharashtra to urgently decide the representations made by Charitable Trusts of the Jain community, seeking a temporary ban on the slaughtering of animals and sale of meat because of the festival.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday 'deprecated' the practice of the Magistrates in Mumbai for giving dates for recording statements of witnesses, victims or the confession of accused under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A division bench led by Justice Revati Mohite-Dere took exception to this practice wherein Magistrates in the city, have been giving dates (for weeks altogether) for recording the statements of witnesses, victims or even the accused.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a complete ban on the use of DJ and beam lights during the celebrations of the upcoming Eid-e-Milad celebrations.
Four residents of Pune City have petitioned the High Court seeking a complete ban on use of DJ and beam lights claiming that the Muslim youth cannot dance to the tunes of DJ during Eid-e-Milad as the same hurts the religious sentiments of the community.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar refused to urgently hear the matter as requested by the counsel representing the petitioners in view of the fact that the Eid-e-Milad will be observed on Monday (September 16).
Bombay High Court Flags "Fake Calls" Made In Name Of Judges; Cautions Citizens
Just a few days after the Supreme Court came across a social media handle impersonating Chief Justice of India Dhananjay Chandrachud and seeking Rs 500, the Bombay High Court too has flagged a similar issue wherein citizens are getting "fake calls" in the name of the judges of the High Court and the scamsters are demanding money.
The High Court Administration learnt about such instances of fake calls being made to citizens impersonating judges of the HC and also as Judicial Officers and money being demanded through such calls and messages or links etc. The HC admin through Registrar General flagged the issue by cautioning the citizens not to fall prey to such calls or messages and rather report the same to the nearest police station.
If police in Maharashtra are going to be insensitive towards women and show their 'lackadaisical' attitude in investigating crimes against women and children, where should the poor, hapless women go? the Bombay High Court orally remarked on Wednesday while criticising the 'shoddy' probes in numerous cases pertaining to crimes against women.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale expressed anguish over the manner in which crimes against women and children were being probed with no sensitivity and seriousness, which benefits the accused, who gets an acquittal due to the improper investigations on the part of the police.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking action against the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, who are continuing to perform the Aesthetic and Hair Transplant surgery despite not being 'qualified' for the same.
The petitioners - Dynamic Dermatologist and Hair Transplant Association moved a PIL petition challenging the guidelines issued by the Dental Council of India (DCI) on December 6, 2022, permitting the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons who are basically Dental Practitioners, across the country to practice Aesthetic and Hair Transplant surgery.
The PIL came up for hearing before a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, who have sought some clarifications on whether the National Dental Commission of India (NDCI) is in place as provided under the newly introduced National Dental Commission Act, 2023. The bench indicated that it will implead the NDCI as a respondent to the instant petition.
The Bombay High Court has directed the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against Harshwardhan H. Sabale, the promoter of IT company Varanium Cloud Ltd, for breach of its earlier orders, where it had directed Sabale to be present in the Court.
Justice Abhay Ahuja directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court to conduct an inquiry as to why the show cause issued by it was not served on Sabale.
The Bombay High Court was last month informed that the Maharashtra government has issued a circular instructing all the police officers across the State to 'scrupulously' implement the provisions of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandate the investigating officer to update the progress of the probe to the complainant, within 90 days of the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan was hearing a writ petition filed by one Nirmala Parmar seeking directions to the Mumbai Police to strictly comply with section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which mandates an investigating officer to hand over a copy of the 'action taken report' or the chargesheet, to the complainant.
In an interesting turn of events, the co-producers of the controversial film "Emergency" on Thursday told the Bombay High Court that the film starring BJP member of parliament (MP) Kangana Ranaut, is being blocked from release at the behest of the BJP itself.
A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla was informed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was acting at the behest of the ruling party (BJP) to protect its "overall interests" as the film is being seen as "Anti-Sikh."
Bombay High Court Restrains Apollo Tyres From Airing Advertisement Ridiculing CEAT Tyres
The Bombay High Court recently passed an ex-parte order restraining the Apollo Tyres from airing an advertisement, wherein the company 'ridiculed and disparaged' CEAT Tyres.
Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla in an order passed on September 12, restrained Apollo Tyres from airing a Visual Commercial (VC) which showed CEAT Tyres in a bad light.
The Bombay High Court was on Thursday informed that the Sinnar Police and also the Maharashtra Police's Cyber Cell have deleted all the links and videos of controversial self-styled godman Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, wherein, he has made some objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad and has hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan was told that pursuant to the bench's earlier order, the Police had deleted all the videos and links, which were pointed out by the complainants in the 58 First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against Ramgiri Maharaj.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (Sept 19) issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, which seeks action against the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons performing Aesthetic and Hair Transplant surgeries.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar issued notice to the respondents to the petition after it was informed that the National Dental Commission of India (NDCI) as mandated under the National Dental Commission Act, 2023, has not yet been constituted by the Central government.
The 'tie-breaker' judge of the Bombay High Court on Friday struck down the 2023 amendments to the IT Rules, which empowers the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify "fake and misleading" information about its business on social media platforms.
"I am of the opinion that the amendments are violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India," Single-judge Justice Atul Chandurkar said while pronouncing his 'opinion' on the issue after a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Dr Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict in January 2024.
"God forbid us if we go by the technicalities" the Bombay High Court remarked on Monday while expressing anguish over the fact that in several serious offences, accused are released only on a technical ground that the investigating officer did not give them the 'grounds of arrest' in writing.
The remark was made by a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while hearing a plea filed by Mihir Shah, prime accused in the Worli hit-and-run case, who has challenged his arrest stating that the same is illegal since the I.O did not give him the 'grounds of arrest' in writing.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Secretary of State High Power Committee, which was constituted to prepare measures to rehabilitate entitled residents in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, to file an affidavit regarding the steps taken by the Committee to ensure rehabilitation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar also asked the Advocate General (AG), Dr. Birendra Saraf, to coordinate with the State High Power Committee to work out a solution for rehabilitating people at the earliest.
Observing that 'lives are precious' the Bombay High Court on Tuesday told the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and also the National Medical Commission (NMC) to play a 'proactive' role and ensure that no other surgery or delivery takes place in mobile torchlight in any of the civic or State-run hospitals.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan was hearing a plea filed by the husband of Shahidunnisa Shaikh, who died after a C-section delivery in the civic-run Sushma Swaraj Maternity Hospital in Mumbai's Bhandup. Her husband alleged that the wife's C-section was performed using a mobile torchlight as the electricity connection in the hospital on the relevant day was down.
A PIL has been filed in the Bombay High Court for banning the online game of 'Rummy' in Maharashtra. The petitioner seeks to ban Rummy on the grounds that it is a game of 'chance', which amounts to 'gambling'.
A Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhayay and Justice M. M. Sathaye heard the matter. The Court asked the respondents (State, Google, Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle) to file affidavits on the maintainability of the petition and also detailing how online rummy is a game of skill rather than a game of chance.
While hearing a plea by father of the Badlapur school sexual assault accused who died in an alleged "fake encounter" on Monday, the Bombay High Court orally said it is difficult to accept that the accused– who was not a "strong man", couldn't be overpowered by the police officials who were with him.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan was hearing the petitioner father's plea who has among various reliefs sought an investigation into the matter as well as registration of FIR against the erring police officials.
A Bandra-resident has moved the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the Maharashtra Police to register a criminal case against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and BJP legislator Nitesh Rane, for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslim community and also for supporting or protecting the persons, who have been recklessly making objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad.
After receiving the 'opinion' of "tie-breaker" Judge, the Bombay High Court division bench today declared amendment to the IT Rules, 2021, "unconstitutional" and struck down the said amendment, which allowed the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify "fake and false" information about its business, being circulated on digital platforms.
The bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale allowed the petitions filed by comedian Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild of India, Association of Indian Magazines and News Broadcasters of Digital Association.
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Thursday told the Bombay High Court that its revising committee has suggested some cuts to the makers of the controversial film "Emergency" and only then the film starring BJP lawmaker Kangana Ranaut, can be released.
However, Zee Studios, the co-producer of the film, urged the division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla to adjourn the hearing as it would want to seek instructions on whether the cuts can be made or not.
Bombay High Court Denies Foreign Travel Permission To Indrani Mukherjea, Allows CBI's Plea
The Bombay High Court today refused permission to Indrani Mukherjea, the prime accused in the high profile murder case of Sheena Bora, to travel to Spain and the United Kingdom (UK).
Single-judge Justice Shyam Chandak pronounced the verdict on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the order of a special court, which permitted Indrani to travel abroad for paying property tax, updating her bank accounts and also for updating her Will (removing name of her ex-husband Peter Mukherjea from the records).
The Maharashtra Police on Friday informed the Bombay High Court that it will be soon identifying a 'secluded' place for burying the dead body of the accused in the Badlapur minors' sexual assault case, who was shot down by the Thane Police in an alleged 'fake' encounter on September 24.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Milind Sathaye was irked to know that the police was successful to identify certain spot for the burial of the body, however, the family's lawyer Amit Katarnaware made some 'political comments' due to which the owners of the land, refused to give their space for the burial.
The Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) on Monday informed the Bombay High Court that Kangana Ranaut, the producer and lead actor in the controversial film "Emergency", has agreed to the cuts/changes as suggested by the Censor Board's revising committee.
A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla has been hearing a petition filed by Zee Studios, the co-producer of the film, seeking certificate for the film's release.