Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460Nominal Index:MARS Enterprise vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443 Madhukar Baburao Shete vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 444T.J. Thomas & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 445Abhijit Padale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
Nominal Index:
MARS Enterprise vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
Madhukar Baburao Shete vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
T.J. Thomas & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
Abhijit Padale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
Anil Govind Ganu & anr. vs. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
ADP vs State of Maharashtra,n2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
Dr. Pradeep Mehta & anr. vs. UPI & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
Tilak Ventures Ltd vs. The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
Rajiv Saxena vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
Aashish Niranjan Shah vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
Milind Kashinath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
Manish Ramniklal Sawla vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
MS vs HS, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu vs Ministry of External Affairs, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
Pidilite Industries vs Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Contempt Petition 28560 of 2024), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs The Registrar, University of Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
Judgments/ Final orders:
Case Title: MARS Enterprise vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court last week held that an owner of a property will have to pay the water tax and the water benefit tax irrespective of whether the owner or occupier of the property uses the water facility or not.
Case title: Madhukar Baburao Shete vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
The Bombay High Court has observed that the Authority or Committee organising Lok Adalat cannot directly transfer pending cases to the Lok Adalat without a reference order from the concerned court, as stipulated under Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Court emphasised that the mandatory procedures outlined in the Act cannot be bypassed only to show high figures of disposal of cases, as it would defeat the very purpose of Lok Adalat.
Case Title: T.J. Thomas & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
While hearing a plea against non issuance of Occupation Certificate (OC) by the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Board (MHADA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC) for certain property, the Bombay High Court said that the authorities' conduct in failing to take necessary actions against the developer pointed to a nexus between them.
A division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata said, “The nexus between MHADA, BMC, and the Developer is apparent. There is no explanation for why, to date, the MHADA has not obtained the surrender of valuable property or compensation from the developer. The MHADA is not some private entity that can waive such conditions at its whims or fancies or foist such conditions indirectly on the tenants or occupants by pressuring them to pressure the developer. The developer has not even bothered to appear because it has nothing to lose and has already gained everything, thanks to the dereliction and unreasonable approach of the MHADA and BMC in this matter.”
Case Title: Abhijit Padale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
No person can be arrested merely because s/he is facing allegations of having committed some offence, the Bombay High Court said recently while holding the arrest of a Thane-based journalist by the Mumbai Police, illegal. It also ordered the Mumbai Police to pay Rs 25,000 compensation to the petitioner. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan noted that the journalist - Abhijit Padale, was arrested under charges of extortion and criminal intimidation, both of which provide for maximum punishment upto four years and three years, respectively.
Case title: Anil Govind Ganu & anr. vs. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
While considering the claim for payment of gratuity by the Directors of a company, the Bombay High Court has observed that an entry in the liability column of the balance sheet of the company cannot be considered an 'agreement' between the company and directors under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated “…it cannot be stated that mere reflection of an entry in the liability column of balance sheet would amount to creation of a right which never existed. . Such right will have to be independently established either through a transaction or a document in the form of a contract.”
Case Title: ADP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
The Bombay High Court has held that if a girl elopes with her paramour before marrying the groom with whom her parents fixed her marriage, she cannot be booked for hearing by the groom and his parents. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale gave the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a girl, her parents and brother, all residents of Pune, for allegedly cheating a man's family, with whom the girl's marriage was fixed after her engagement.
Case title: Dr. Pradeep Mehta & anr. vs. UPI & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
The Bombay High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs to two individuals whose Demat accounts were frozen at the behest of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange (NSE), following the directives of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the arbitrary freezing of demat accounts by the authorities violated the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Reopening Proceedings In Defiance Of Mandatory Procedure U/s 151A To Be Quashed: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tilak Ventures Ltd vs. The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
The Bombay High Court clarified that the Assessing Officer is required to adhere to the provisions of Section 151A read with CBDT Notification dated Mar 29, 2022 for resorting to a procedure u/s 148A and the consequent notice u/s 148.
Case Title: Rajiv Saxena vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
Finding that the Assessee had transactions with certain Indian citizens, who were subject to search operation and whose assessments were centralized with the Central Circle at New Delhi, the Bombay High Court find sufficient reasons for proposing of Assessee's case to be centralised at New Delhi.
The High Court also found that the assessment of such persons would certainly have a bearing on the assessment of the Assessee, as there are inter se transactions between such parties. Thus, the High Court upheld the order u/s 127 transferring Assessee's case from the AO in Mumbai to AO in Delhi.
Case Title: Aashish Niranjan Shah vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that it is not open to the Revenue to initiate reassessment on the premise that it can simply form a belief supported by its own reasons, thereby ignoring the explicit formulation of the jurisdiction within which reassessment may be initiated.
The High Court therefore quashes the reassessment notice issued under old regime of Section 148 along with the order disposing off Assessee's objection against re-opening of the assessment.
Case Title: Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered all the municipal corporations in Maharashtra to urgently decide the representations made by various Charitable Trusts of the Jain community seeking a temporary ban on the slaughtering of animals and sale of meat in view of the community's "Paryushan Parva."
Case Title: Milind Kashinath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
Observing that his act "undermined the integrity of electoral process and democracy" the Bombay High Court last week rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by a man, who allegedly cheated the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) party and filled in his own nomination form instead of the party's official candidate. Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha dismissed the bail application filed by one Milind Kamble, who was entrusted with the task to fill in the AB forms for the Lok Sabha Elections, bythe VBA party.
Case title: Manish Ramniklal Sawla vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application that challenged the decision of State authorities to grant temporary permission for erecting Ganesh pandals in an open area of land in Andheri, Mumbai.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar noted that the land has been allocated temporarily for the Ganesh Chaturthi festival and that the pandals will be removed after the festival is over.
Case Title: MS vs HS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
In a significant order, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that custody matters pertaining to a child cannot be decided merely on the basis of the 'desire' of the child of a tender age since there are possibilities of 'tutoring' the child. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant upheld the May 9, 2024 judgment of a Family Court in Aurangabad, which granted custody of two minor boys of 2 and 5 years of age, to their mother. The bench refused to accept the contention of the father, who enjoyed the children's custody until May 2024, that the children 'desired' to stay with him and not with the mother.
Case Title: Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu vs Ministry of External Affairs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
The Bombay High Court bench at Goa on Wednesday (August 28) held that a child cannot be denied Indian citizenship just because s/he lives with a single parent, who too is a foreign national.
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki SA Menezes said a parent giving up Indian citizenship would not affect the citizenship status of the child, who got Indian citizenship by virtue of birth.
Case List: Pidilite Industries vs Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Contempt Petition 28560 of 2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
In yet another case of contempt in a commercial suit, the Bombay High Court on August 13 imposed a hefty cost of Rs 50 lakh on a company which used 'deceptively' similar trademark of Fevicol and its range of products despite an injunction restraining the company from using anything similar to said trademark. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla noted that the petitioner in breach of the injunction order continued to sell the disputed products. It refused to accept the contention of the original defendant Kusum Puri Goswami, the owners of defendant company that it had sold the company to one Rajinder Puri Goswami and thus, they cannot be held responsible for any disobedience of the High Court's July 13, 2017 injunction order.
Case Details: Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday transferred the investigations of the infamous Nagpur Ram Jhula hit-and-run case, wherein a woman under the influence of alcohol drove her Mercedes Benz and mowed down two youngsters, from the local police station to the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) after noting several lapses in the initial investigation.
A division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi while transferring the case observed that defective investigation tends to shake the confidence of the members of the society and also the victims.
Case Details: Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs The Registrar, University of Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while upholding the punishment of a college library attendant for 'misconduct' within the campus, observed that nowadays 'disorderly, rowdy behaviour' of employees in schools and colleges has become an accepted norm, which has only brought disrepute to the institutions.
Single-judge Justice RM Joshi while upholding the September 23, 2008 judgment of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal (MUCT), said the punishment upheld by the tribunal of dismissing the petitioner from service, was 'proportionate' to his 'proved' misconduct.
Other orders/observations:
In a temporary respite for the United States food giant 'Burger King' the Bombay High Court on Monday granted an ad-interim order, restraining a Pune-based food joint from using the trademark 'Burger King' till further hearing in the matter.
A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil said it will hear the appeal filed by Burger King Corporation, the US food company through its counsel Hiren Kamod, on September 6.
Justice Bharati Dangre Of Bombay High Court Recuses From Hearing Ex-Cop Sachin Waze's Plea
Bombay High Court judge Justice Bharati Dangre on Tuesday recused from passing orders or further hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by dismissed cop Sachin Waze.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande had earlier this month heard brief submissions on the plea filed by Waze, who seeks his release from the custody in the corruption case related to former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.
While hearing a suo motu PIL regarding the alleged sexual assault of two minor kindergarten girls in a school at Badlapur in Thane, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday orally called for "teaching boys the difference between right and wrong" as well as sensitising them about respecting women at a young age.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan asked advocate general Birendra Saraf appearing for the State of Maharashtra to submit a few names of persons who can constitute a committee which can recommend the manner of preventing such acts in schools and other places.
In the last 20 years, a total of 23,027 lives have been lost in Mumbai's "life line" i.e. local trains and at least 26,572 citizens have sustained injuries, the Railways told the Bombay High Court recently.
This comes in an affidavit filed by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Western Railways, in response to the order of a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, calling for a 'robust' system to prevent deaths in local trains.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a temporary ban on the slaughtering of animals and sale of meat across Maharashtra from August 31, 2024 to September 7, 2024, in view of the 'Paryushan Parv' a prominent festival of the Jain Community.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar is likely to hear the petition on Thursday morning.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in a plea filed by a final year law student of the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) challenging the decision of the varsity to expel him from the institution after he was found guilty by of 'repeated' sexual harassment of girls by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).
A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil closed the petition filed by the fifth year law student, who hails from a 'reputable' lawyers' family from Nagpur. He has challenged the June 21, 2024 order of the MNLU Vice Chancellor (VC) expelling him from the varsity based on sexual harassment findings of the ICC.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday criticised the Maharashtra Government for waiving Rs. 14.8 crores in arrears owed by the Indian Premier League (IPL) organisers for police protection provided during IPL matches, since 2011.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar pulled up the State for its decision, orally observing, "You will keep increasing water charges from slum dwellers..but won't charge from these organisers. BCCI is the richest cricket body globally. That's how they have become rich."
A former journalist has approached the Bombay High Court seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR) against the engineers of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Maharashtra government's Malwan Division, over the sudden collapse of the 40-feet grand statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj at Sindhudurg district. Unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the presence of Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Deputy CMs Ajit Pawar and Devendra Fadnavis, the grand statue made of iron collapsed within nine months on August 26. The petition claims that the State as a whole has been responsible for 'international shame' brought to the country by virtue of crashing statue, that was built within seven months.
In a bid to defend itself from the criticism following the communal violence at the Vishalgadh Fort area in Kolhapur and the subsequent demolition drive to pull down allegedly 'illegal' structures of a particular community, the Maharashtra Government on Friday denied all the allegations made against it and told the Bombay High Court in clear terms that whatever violence took place was "not a State-sponsored violence."
The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Maharashtra government to issue directions to all municipal corporations across the state to impose 'strict conditions' on Mandals seeking to organise Ganeshotsav, not to use Ganpati idols made from Plaster of Paris (PoP).
The court said this after taking note of the Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) Guidelines on Idol Immersion issued in May 2020 banning the use of PoP.
The Bombay High Court has asked the State of Maharashtra to submit an affidavit regarding the measures it has taken to ensure the safety and security of female students attending college at Matunga, Mumbai.
The Girls' College in question is managed by the Seva Mandal Education Society (petitioner no.2). The petitioner-society contended that as the college is surrounded by slums, there is a possibility of danger against the girl students.
In a response to the 'continuous criticism' by the Bombay High Court for 'shoddy probes' in cases pertaining to women, the Mumbai Police has informed the High Court that it takes each and every offence seriously and gives priority to offences against women.
In an affidavit, Vivek Phansalkar, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai has urged the bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale not to draw a conclusion that cases against women are not probed seriously by the city's police force.
Case Title: Universal Builders In the matter between : Vascon Engineers Limited Versus Universal Builders
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary.
The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred, it is unnecessary to delay the consideration of an application under Section 11. It noted that if the pleadings are complete and all relevant issues are adequately documented, the application should be considered without requiring additional personal hearings.