Nominal Index [Citation 197 - 212]Raju Pednekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 197Sardar s/o Shahvali Khan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 198Satish s/o Ramesh Nandre v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 199Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram v. Zilla Parishad and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 200Mukta Dabholkar & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation...
Nominal Index [Citation 197 - 212]
Raju Pednekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
Sardar s/o Shahvali Khan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
Satish s/o Ramesh Nandre v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram v. Zilla Parishad and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
Mukta Dabholkar & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
Shobha w/o Sanjay Tidke v. Kishanrao S/o. Ramrao Tidke and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
Assistant Conservator of Forest & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Akash Kanwarlal Kamal v. Himani Akash Kamal 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
Rahul S/o Omprakash Gandhi v. Akola Janta Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Sandoz Private Limited v. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
Dharmendra M. Jani v. UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
Rohan Lobo v. State Of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
Sharad S/o. Shankarrao Bonde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Padmapur, Chandrapur. v. Anjutai Wd/o Rajkumar Tiple 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Raju Pednekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
The Bombay High Court dismissed pleas against an Ordinance issued by the CM Eknath Shinde led Maharashtra government and subsequent Act to reduce the number of civic wards back from 236 to 227.
“(impugned legislations) cannot be found to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional, nor could they be found to be actuated by any political consideration or motive," the division bench comprising Justice SS Shukre and Justice MW Chandwani held.
Case Title: Sardar s/o Shahvali Khan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
The Bombay High Court denied 1993 Bombay blasts convict Sardar Shahvali Khan's request to be transferred to an open prison.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad held that the convicts under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 can fall under the category of prisoners ineligible for confinement in an open prison as per Maharashtra Open Prison Rules, 1971.
Six-Year-Old Not Expected To Know Culprit's Full Name: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction
Case Title: Satish s/o Ramesh Nandre v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
Observing that a 6-year-old child is not expected to know the full name of the person who raped her, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old man who was booked after the child provided his nickname to the police.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad held the fact that the child's mother provided the full name from the nickname given by the child does not mean that the accused is being implicated in the crime.
Case Title: Sudha wd/o Bhagirath Meshram v. Zilla Parishad and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
Despite the employee’s undertaking at the time of pay fixation to refund any excess amount paid to him, the Bombay High Court quashed an order to recover excess amount of over two lakhs from the widow of a high school lecturer.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice MW Chandwani noted that the widow and her children are completely dependent on the pension of Rs. 14,250/- per month and held that it would be harsh and iniquitous to recover the amount.
After 9 Yrs Bombay High Court Discontinues Monitoring Anti-Superstition Crusader Narendra Dabholkar’s Murder Probe; Kin Say Masterminds Yet To Be Nabbed
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
The Bombay High Court refused to continue monitoring the murder probe of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar, who was shot dead for ideological reasons on his morning walk in 2013.
The division bench of Justices Ajay S Gadkari and Prakash Naik disposing of two petitions, one filed by Dabholkar’s kin for court monitored probe observing that the investigation is complete.
Widow Not Liable To Maintain In-Laws Under Section 125 CrPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shobha w/o Sanjay Tidke v. Kishanrao S/o. Ramrao Tidke and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
The Bombay High Court held that parents-in-law are not entitled to maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under section 125 of CrPC.
Justice Kishore C Sant sitting at Aurangabad noted that the list of relatives entitled to claim maintenance under the section is exhaustive and does not include father-in-law and mother-in-law.
Trial Court Had Duty To Interview 10 Yrs Old Child & Understand His Desire: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Granting Custody To Father
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
The Bombay High Court set aside a custody order citing the trial court's failure to interview the child to ascertain his wish.
Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke of the Nagpur bench sent the case back to the trial court for fresh consideration observing that the trial court should have conducted an in-camera interview of the child before deciding the matter.
The trial court was bound to make thorough enquiry to ascertain the welfare of the child, the court held.
Case Title: Assistant Conservator of Forest & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Observing that prima facie officials of the forest department wanted to evict a tribal living on the borders of the famous Tadoba Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra without following due process, the Bombay High Court rejected a Civil Revision Application filed by the State.
Justice MS Jawalkar noted that without giving the tribal a hearing, his claim to four hectares of land was rejected and the order wasn’t even communicated to him.
Bombay High Court Refuses Relief To Divorced Woman Who Remarried During Appeal Period
Case Title: Akash Kanwarlal Kamal v. Himani Akash Kamal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
The Bombay High Court rejected a woman’s interim application seeking dismissal of her husband’s appeal against their divorce decree on the ground that she had already married someone else.
The court observed that the “Family Court Appeal filed by the husband within the appeal period (of 90 days) would not be rendered infructuous upon the Applicant (wife) having contracted second marriage and that also during the appeal period.”
Case Title: Rahul S/o Omprakash Gandhi v. Akola Janta Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
The Bombay High Court ruled that the purpose of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which provides for delivery of the signed copy of the arbitral award, is of imparting knowledge to the party regarding the contents of the award, and to make the party aware that the limitation to raise a challenge has started to run.
Justice Avinash G Gharote court held that the said knowledge/information is equally available to the party, when it receives the certified copy of the award signed by the Arbitrator. Thus, the Court remarked that the purpose of Section 31(5) is achieved whether a signed copy is delivered or a certified copy of the signed award is obtained by the party.
Indian Court Can Entertain Complaint Against Domestic Violence Committed Abroad: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
The Bombay High Court held that judicial magistrate in India can take cognizance of domestic violence committed in foreign soil under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench observed that the Act is a social beneficial legislation and the lawmakers worded section 27 of the Act keeping in mind possible domestic violence outside India.
Case Title: Sandoz Private Limited v. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
The Bombay High Court upheld an interim order against Sandoz Private Limited, a global leader in generic pharmaceuticals and biosimilars, directing it to re-employ workers it retrenched or provide security over applicable wages till pendency of the industrial complaint.
Justice NJ Jamadar took strong exception to the manner in which Sandoz retrenched its employees a night before their matter was heard by the Industrial Court for interim reliefs.
Case Title: Dharmendra M. Jani v. UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutionality of taxing intermediary services under the IGST Act.
"The provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid, and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of the IGST Act only, and the same cannot be made applicable for the levy of tax on services under the CGST and MGST Acts," the bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed.
Case Title: Rohan Lobo v. State Of Goa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
The Bombay High Court held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020, is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that by simply not issuing sanction orders or delaying the issue of sanctions indefinitely or unreasonably, the state cannot arbitrarily deprive the parties' interests by way of compensation. A deprivation would fall foul of Articles 14, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sharad S/o. Shankarrao Bonde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
The Bombay High Court upheld acquittal of five persons in a forgery case citing defective investigation as there was no handwriting expert report regarding the authors of the signature on the forged document.
Justice GA Sanap observed that the possibility of the complainant himself having forged the signatures cannot be ruled out in the absence of a handwriting report.
Case Title: Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Padmapur, Chandrapur. v. Anjutai Wd/o Rajkumar Tiple
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
The Bombay High Court recently held that a crane used within coal mine premises falls within the definition of “motor vehicle” under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).
Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke of the Nagpur bench upheld a compensation order for the family of a Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) employee who died after colliding with a crane being operated by another employee.
Other Developments
The Central Bureau of Investigation informed the Bombay High Court that INTERPOL's Yellow Notices for missing children will be issued to locate producer Mushtaq Nadiadwala's children currently in Pakistan.
The CBI explained that it required certain details of the children to get the notices, which Nadiadwala, through his lawyer, promised to share within 48 hours.
"The Interpol to take such steps as stated aforesaid and locate the children," a division bench of Justices Revati Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh said in the order.
The Union Government’s impending Fact Checking Unit may only direct removal of false or misleading information pertaining to Government policies and programs, not satire or artist impression, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) told the Bombay High Court.
The affidavit seeking dismissal of stand-up comic Kunal Kamra's plea cited an MIT research paper to state that false news travelled six times faster than the truth, necessitating the 2023 amendment to the IT Rules.