Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373]A vs P, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 350M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373]
A vs P, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
Venus Jewel Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain, 024 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368
Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 369
Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 370
Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
Judgments/Final Orders
Case Title: A vs P
Citation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance. With these observations, the High Court had dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs, a miscellaneous application filed by a husband, who sought to transfer the DV proceedings initiated by his wife before a Magistrate Court in Sewree to the Family Court in Bandra, where he himself has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife.
Case Title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 350
The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while dealing with the plea noted that the detenu had forwarded his representation against the preventive detention, on January 25, 2024, and the authorities decided the same after more than a month, i.e. February 26, 2024. The authorities explained the delay by citing reasons such as the detailed report (on detention) could not be prepared by the sponsoring authority as some of the policemen were on bandobast duty and some on election duty. They further cited public holidays, weekly holidays etc for the said delay in deciding the representation of the detenu.
Terming this explanation 'unsatisfactory', the judges in their order observed, "..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."
Case Title: M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 351
The Bombay High Court expressed frustration at the conduct of non-consenting members of a Cooperative Housing Society who refused to vacate their flats despite the approval of a Development Agreement by majority of the Society's members. Justice Arif Doctor while considering a Commercial Arbitration Petition filed by a developer, seeking relief against few members of the society, observed, “The docket of this Court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law”
Case Title: Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a youth under charges of causing death by negligence (304-A of IPC) of a woman, whom he dashed while driving his motorcycle in a rash manner, however, it ordered his release under the Probation of Offenders Act (PoA) after noting that he has a "bright future." Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the convict before him, was merely 18-year-old in April 2013, when he drove his newly brought motorcycle for the first time, and mowed down the victim woman, who was sitting outside her house. The judge, while invoking provisions of the PoA Act, said, "The peculiar facts and circumstances of this case were that the Petitioner had just completed 18 years. He was a teenager, and in the excitement and happiness, he might have driven the new vehicle for the first time and lost control. In the ordinary course, he had no reason to take the vehicle away from the road and cause an accident. His age and the way in which the accident happened are the peculiar facts to be considered in this case. He has a bright future."
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for failing to provide either rent or an alternate accommodation to a project affected person (PAP), observed that the BMC being the richest civic body in the country cannot act arbitrarily towards its citizens. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata noted that the house of the petitioner before it was demolished in November 2017 and since then he was neither being paid any rent nor was he given an alternate accommodation. And instead, the BMC has been compelling the petitioner to live at Mahul village in Mumbai, a region already declared "unfit for human habitation" by the High Court in 2019, owing to the air pollution there.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case, criticised the complainant - Rajesh Kunte, a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for unnecessarily protracting the trial and thwarting the Congress leader's right to speedy trial. The case pertained to Gandhi's statement made in a speech made in a political rally in Bhiwandi district during the 2014 general elections, wherein he allegedly accused RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan while allowed a writ petition filed by the Congress leader challenging the order of the Magistrate Court, which permitted Kunte to rely on the transcript of Gandhi's speech. The parliamentarian from Rae Bareli had contended that he cannot be compelled to admit or rely on any documents in the case. The judge in his order pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics. "It can be seen that the respondent No.2 (Kunte) is keeping no stone un-turned to thwart the legitimate right of the petitioner (Gandhi) to get the complaint decided on merits as expeditiously as possible in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides speedy trial. It is difficult to abstruse the conduct of the respondent No.2. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done," the judge observed in his order.
Case Title: Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court made a grave error in holding that a transferee of rights in the property needs a separate assignment of the decree for its execution, as it overlooked the Explanation added through the 1977 amendment to Order 21 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which clarified that a transfer of property allows the transferee to execute the decree without a separate assignment.
Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Initiated By Customs Authorities For Seizing Jewellery
Case Title: Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 356
The Bombay High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities for seizing the jewellery against a US national of Indian origin, who was found to be wearing a gold chain with a gold pendant embedded with 12 diamonds. On questioning, the petitioner stated that the gold chain was purchased in 1989 by him from a jeweller in the US for around USD 25,000, which, at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of his arrival in Mumbai from New York, i.e., May 6, 2007, would work out to about Rs. 10,02,500/-. The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, in which it was held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value, provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport.
Case Title: M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 357
The Bombay High Court has observed that on reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the amount payable was Rs. 66,17,057, whereas the petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821, which is an excess payment and not a short payment. Therefore, even on this count, a defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. The bench therefore directed the sales tax department to refund Rs. 10.70 crore to the petitioner.
Case Title: Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 358
The Bombay High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would cease to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, outside the faceless assessment. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the JAO did not have the authority to issue the reassessment notices in view of the faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act by the Central Government in the notification dated March 29, 2022.
Case Title:Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that the investigating agency under the Unlawful Activitives Prevention Act (UAPA) cannot seek an extension in filing the chargesheet citing the lack of sanction. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse held that for filing a chargesheet, there is no requirement of a sanction from the competent authority and the same can be obtained subsequently. The judges further held that in such a scenario, an investigating agency cannot seek extension of time to file chargesheet on the ground that it has to obtain the mandatory sanction from the competent authority.
Case Title: Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 360
The Bombay High Court observed that Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) promotes the concept of 'open membership' and thus, the rejection of membership by a Co-operative Bank based on alleged motives to disrupt its administration, despite the applicants fulfilling all conditions mandated by the MCS Act, was deemed to be a violation of Section 23 of the MCS Act. Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar dealt with a plea challenging the order of the Cabinet Minister for Co-operation, Maharashtra, by which the decision of the Ahmednagar Merchant's Co-operative Bank Ltd. to refuse its membership to the petitioners was upheld.
Investment Allowance Available On Exchange Rate Fluctuation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 361
The Bombay High Court has held that investment allowance is available on exchange rate fluctuations. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ambika Mills Ltd., in which it was held that investment allowance, consequent to exchange rate fluctuation, would be allowable.
Section 148A(d) Order Passed Without Section 151 Sanction Is Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 362
The Bombay High Court has held that if an order is passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of an appropriate sanction in terms of the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the order and the consequent notice under Section 148 would be required to be declared illegal. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that a sanction for passing an order under Section 148A(d) was required to be obtained under clause (ii) of Section 151 as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year for the proceedings to be adopted under Section 148A and thereafter under Section 148 of the Act. However, the sanction was obtained under clause (i) of Section 151.
JAO Not Empowered To Issue Section 148A(b) Notice Under Faceless Assessment: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Venus Jewel Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 363
The Bombay High Court has held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a notice under Section 148A(b), as the same would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the notice was invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 364
A husband convicted for causing the dowry death of his wife stands disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased wife as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar rejected the argument of the Testamentary Department which opined that a person convicted for causing dowry death (under section 304-B of the IPC) cannot be equated with a 'murderer' as prescribed under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the law only disqualifies a person convicted for murder (under section 302 of the IPC). The Court emphasised that Section 25 of the Act disqualified a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder. This expression, it said, must be construed as to advance the object of the Act, which is to disallow devolution of property upon deceased's murderer.
Bombay High Court Criticizes Maharashtra Govt For Its "Mindset" To Curtail Liberty Of Undertrial
Case Title: Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 365
The Bombay High Court criticised the Maharashtra Police for its "mindset" to curtail the liberty of undertrials, who have served more than half of the possible maximum punishment they may be handed over after conviction. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale said in a democracy the police cannot give an impression that it is a Police State. The observations were made while granting bail to one Kartik Prasad, booked under charges of fraud, forgery and the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) (MPID) Act. The bench was irked with the State for urging the court to stay its bail order for four weeks so that it can appeal against the same in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 366
The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra government's decision exempting private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections, if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school, is "unconstitutional". The decision was taken by the State this year by amending the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar set-aside the Rules as unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Case Title: Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 367
In the conservative Indian society, a mother may concoct a story of her own molestation but would not jeopardise the future of her daughter by falsely implicating someone in a sexual harassment case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while rejecting the argument of a man, convicted for sexually assaulting a girl, said that even in case of enmity, a family will not jeopardise the future of their minor girl by implicating the accused in a false case. The judge pointed out that the parents of the victim in the instant case had no reason to falsely implicated the accused. "If they wanted to falsely implicate the accused, then the mother of the victim would have created an imaginary story of molesting her own modesty. In our conservative society, even on account of family enmity, the future and career of the girl is not jeopardized. In my view, this is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution," the bench underscored.
MSME Council Has Power To Decide Issue Of Its Own Jurisdiction Under MSMED Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368
The Bombay High Court has observed that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has the authority to determine its jurisdiction over disputes under Section 18 of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED). Single-judge Bharat P. Deshpande was considering a challenge to a notice issued by the Nodal Officer for Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated January 1, 2024, which stated that as conciliation between the petitioner and the respondent was not possible, the Council invoked its authority under Section 18 (3) of MSMED Act to refer the matter to arbitration. The petitioner objected to the Council's jurisdiction to entertain conciliation proceedings initiated on behalf of respondent no. 2 on the ground that respondent no. 2 was not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of contract. However, the Council failed to decide its jurisdiction for conciliation or arbitration referral. The petitioner contended that the Council lacked jurisdiction to entertain the conciliation proceedings, let alone refer the matter to arbitration. The High Court noted that the Council has the power to decide on the question of its own jurisdiction. It referred to Section 18 of the MSMED Act, which provides that any dispute between the buyer and seller can be referred the Council, and on such reference, the Council can either conduct conciliation or refer the matter for arbitration.
Case Title: Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 369
The Bombay High Court has held that the Central Government under its powers has declared underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, a terrorist in his "individual capacity" and thus any association of any person with him or the D-Company, would not attract punishment for being member of a terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to two men booked for their alleged links with D-Company and for their involvement in a drugs seizure case. "Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed, is in the form of Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20," the judges held in their July 11 order.
Case Title: Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 370
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that individual members of the Society cannot be considered signatories to the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as they do not individually participate in its formation or execution of arbitration clause. The bench was dealing with a plea filed by 11 members of a housing society, who filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 concerning disputes arising from a Development Agreement between the Society and the Developer. The Developer challenged the legitimacy of the individuals issuing the notice on behalf of the Society. The Court noted that the agreement clearly provided for arbitration by either a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties or, in the absence of such consent, by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, with each party appointing one arbitrator and these arbitrators mutually selecting a presiding arbitrator. It rejected the argument put forth by the Applicants that the term "the society" should be construed to encompass all its members, including 40 additional individuals besides the Society and the Developer. Such an interpretation, according to the Court, would distort the intended bilateral nature of the arbitration agreement.
Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 371
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature. In the detailed order, the bench held that the court: (i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well-settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions; (ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view, (iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary conclusion, (iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and (v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals.
Case Title: Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 372
A person in the business of shares, forwarding certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that can be dormant, cannot be booked for duping shareholders, the Bombay High Court observed while granting bail to a stock broker, booked under charges of forgery and fraud. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale while dealing with the bail application filed by one Manish Shah noted that he had only shared a few messages on WhatsApp with the main accused about details of certain shares of the complainant company. "Being a stock broker and in the business of shares, merely because the applicant was in touch with accused No.1 and he forwarded certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that could be said to be dormant, in itself cannot be the basis of claiming that the applicant had a major role to play in duping the shareholders (victims)," Justice Pitale said in the order.
Case Title: Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 373
The Bombay High Court has said that every police officer in each case, before making any arrests, must inform the person to be arrested, in writing, the grounds of his arrest and only then proceed to effect arrest, as the same is the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court of India. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to one Pandurang Naik, who was arrested on February 22, 2024, in connection to a cheating case.The judges noted that Naik was arrested on February 22 at 6:00 PM and only his mother was informed about his arrest. He was produced before a court for remand on the following day. He was subsequently charge-sheeted. However, Naik petitioned the bench seeking bail on the limited ground that the due procedure was not followed by the suburban Malad police station in Mumbai by giving in writing the grounds of his arrest. The bench referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and also in Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) cases, wherein the apex court has held that the grounds of arrest must be given by the arresting authority, to the person being arrested, in writing
Other Orders & Observations:
The Bombay High Court last week pulled up the Maharashtra government for demolishing around 70 structures in the Vishalgadh fort area in Kolhapur where communal violence broke out between two groups on July 14. A communal violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Vishalgadh fort area on July 14 and from July 15 itself the State's Public Works Department (PWD) initiated demolition process in the disturbed area, pulling down houses, shops etc., the court was told. While the Maharashtra government maintained that it was only razing commercial structures, which aren't protected by any court order, the division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla ordered the State not to pull down any structure be it commercial or a household one. The bench even slammed the State for initiating demolition process during rainy season, which is against the State's own notification.
A law student has petitioned the Bombay High Court after his answer sheet was torn by a professor as he demanded extra supplements for writing his exams. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil issued notice to the DY Patil Law College at Pimpri. The bench also ordered the authorities to preserve the CCTV footages of the exam hall and also of the principal's cabin, where the incident of tearing of the answer sheet took place. In his petition through Advocate Sanket Bora, the student pointed out that he has been a meritorious student from the very first year of his five year law course. He stated that just before his 8th semester exams, he had sent a request to the College Principal through email, for providing additional supplements for writing his answers since the 36-page answersheet is not sufficient for him. On June 11, when the petitioner appeared for his Practical Training Paper (II) Alternate Dispute Resolution, a professor of the college was the supervisor, who, the petitioner alleged was in an inebriated condition and tore his answer sheet while collecting it as he was unhappy with the petitioner sending a mail to the principal asking for more supplements,
Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) leader Ravindra Waikar's election to the 18th Lok Sabha has been challenged before the Bombay High Court by an election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar, who lost to the former by a mere 48 votes. Kirtikar, a candidate from the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction) has sought a declaration against the election of Waikar from the Mumbai North-West Constituency and instead seeks to declare him as a winning candidate. Kirtikar, who lost by a mere margin of 48 votes has alleged several lapses on part of the Election Officers such as not permitting him to file an application for recounting of votes, permitting use of mobile phones in the counting area, allowing impersonators to cast 333 votes etc.