Nominal Index [Citation 92 - 105]Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 92Sagar D. Meghe v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 93Chanda Kochhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 94Gokulnath Raghu Shetty v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 95Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Bom)...
Nominal Index [Citation 92 - 105]
Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Sagar D. Meghe v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
Chanda Kochhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
Gokulnath Raghu Shetty v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
Ashwini Sanjay Kale and Ors v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
Dr. Ramnath Govind Kadam and Ors. v. Mangal Bhausaheb Kadam and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
Rabo Bank v. State Bank of India 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
Showik Indrajit Chakraborty v. Addl. Superintendent of Police 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
M/s. Jagruti Foundation, Pune v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
Jijaba Dashrath Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Rahul S/o Dhondiram Meshram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Prashant @ Sonya Ramesh Sabale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Warning that neglect in safeguarding the rights and well-being of children could perpetuate cycles of abuse and hinder educational opportunities, the Bombay High Court directed the State government to fill vacancies in various child welfare institutions within three months. This includes posts in the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, State Child Protection Society, District Child Protection Units, Juvenile Justice Board, Child Welfare Committees, and District Protection Officers and Probation Officers.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye issued a set of directions to address the deficiencies in child welfare institutions across Maharashtra observing –
“All these shortfalls pose a serious threat to the well-being of children, undermining their rights and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and neglect. The lives of countless children are at stake and apathy towards child protection can perpetuate cycles of abuse, hinder educational opportunities, and jeopardize the overall well-being of the future generation. Thus urgent action is required to rectify the deficiencies in the implementation of child protection measures in Maharashtra.”
Case Title: Sagar D. Meghe v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case registered against former MLC Sagar Meghe after Rs. 4.75 lakh cash was found in a vehicle during his campaign for the 2014 parliamentary election.
A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V Joshi allowed Meghe's application for quashing of the charge-sheet against him for offences under Sections 171-H (Illegal payments in connection with an election) and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of IPC, and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
“the learned Counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of Government of India Notification dated 28.02.2014 to impress that for contesting election for parliamentary constituency, the maximum limit for election expenses in the State of Maharashtra is of Rs.70 lakhs. In that context, mere finding of cash amount to the tune of Rs.4.75 lakh cannot be construed as an offence under either of the statute. It is also submitted that there is no declaration that said vehicle was used for election campaign”, the court observed.
The court criticized the careless attitude of the police in invoking Sections against Meghe that do not apply at all and emphasized the importance of verifying charge-sheets before filing them in court.
Exercise Of The Right To Remain Silent Cannot Be Equated With Non-Cooperation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
In a detailed order declaring the arrest of former ICICI bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar by CBI “illegal,” the Bombay High Court called the investigating agencies acts an “abuse of power.”
The division bench of Justices Anuja Parbhudessai and NR Borkar observed: “Such routine arrest without application of mind and due regard to the law amounts to an abuse of power and does not satisfy the requirement of Section 41A(3) CrPC.”
The bench agreed with the observations of the coordinate bench while granting them interim bail. It opined that the involvement of bank official in the conspiracy was not discovered during the course of investigation but was known to the agency at the time of registration of FIR in 2019 despite which the CBI didn't find the need to arrest duo for three years.
The court opined that while an investigating agency can interrogate an accused, the accused has a right to remain silent. “The right to silence emanates from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which gives an accused the right against self incrimination. Suffice it to say that exercise of the right to remain silent cannot be equated with non co-operation,” it held.
Case Title: Gokulnath Raghu Shetty v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Gokulnath Raghu Shetty, prime accused in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case involving over Rs 7,000 crore.
Justice M.S. Karnik expressed concerns over the prolonged incarceration of the applicant for nearly six years without the trial commencing.
“The reason why I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail is only on the ground of long incarceration. The applicant was arrested on 06.03.2018 and is now in custody almost for six years. The charge has not been framed so far. There are around hundred witnesses to be examined. The trial is not likely to conclude any time soon. The applicant is 65 years of age.”
The case pertains the fraud by diamond merchants Mehul Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi, among others, by obtaining fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) from PNB in connivance with certain bank officials.
Case Title: Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was purely on the basis of a change of opinion of the AO from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings. The change of opinion does not constitute justification for assuming that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the AO in the assessment order has noted that the issue of investment in immovable property and capital gain/income on sale of property was considered under limited scrutiny assessment, and in view of the material on record, no addition on the issue is made. The information relied upon while issuing notice under Section 148A(b) relates to the flat, and an entirely contradictory view is taken in the order that the asset sold was a short-term capital asset and the gain arising on the transfer of the said flat is a short-term capital gain.
Case Title: Ashwini Sanjay Kale and Ors v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
The Bombay High Court held that age relaxation in judicial services granted to backward-class candidates would not apply to Maratha candidates who had initially applied under the SEBC category and were converted to EWS after the Apex Court struck down the SEBC Act.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by four Maratha candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) seeking age relaxation under the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 (2008 Rules). It said:
“The contention of the petitioners that since they belong to economically weaker section, the phrase “backward” used in proviso to Rule 5(3)(c) would include candidates belonging to economically weaker section is required to be rejected. The petitioners had made an application under the SEBC Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court...Therefore, the community notified under the said Act would not be treated as backward class since the said Act does not exit”, the court observed.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court held that if an assessee for commercial expediency and in the normal course of its business activities takes loan to invest in shares of its subsidiary, the interest paid on these advances utilised is allowable expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that assessee had an aggregate shareholding of 64% in the subsidiary and, therefore, it cannot be contended that share application money made is not for business purpose.
Case Title: Dr. Ramnath Govind Kadam and Ors. v. Mangal Bhausaheb Kadam and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
The Bombay High Court observed that politicians appear to have diverted from their primary responsibility to ensure public administration is conducted impartially and have forgotten that good politicians are supposed to make the commoners' life easy and comfortable.
Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a doctor and other village residents challenging the election of Village Panchayat members who submitted affidavits of their election expenses with a slight delay due to health reasons.
The court pointed out that the doctor, a candidate who did not get elected, diverted time and resources into litigation instead of social work.
The court said that the delay was essentially of only one day, as the other days were holidays and the affidavits were submitted as soon as the office reopened, and it could not be said to be deliberate. Finding the respondents' reasons plausible, the court concluded, “The candidates who were democratically elected could not be sent back for such a small delay, which was beyond their control.”
Case Title: Rabo Bank v. State Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court clarified that the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court over a suit is determined based on the valuation of the suit as disclosed in the plaint and not on the value of the potential final relief granted in case the suit is decreed in the plaintiff's favor.
Justice Abhay Ahuja ordered the expeditious transfer of a 2001 commercial summary suit to the Bombay City Civil Court due to that court's enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction observing that the interest amount not specifically stated in the plaint cannot be included in the valuation, since it is not yet determined. It said:
“Until and unless the suit is heard and decreed, the amount of interest is undetermined. What the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff is proposing is to value the suit on the decretal amount assuming a decree being passed in the Plaintiff's favour. In my view, that cannot be permitted being contrary to the settled principle that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court depends on the valuation of the Suit as disclosed in the plaint and not on the valuation of the ultimate relief as granted by the decree. There cannot be a pre-emptive valuation prior to a decree only for the purposes of retaining the matter in this Court.”
Case Title: Showik Indrajit Chakraborty v. Addl. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
The LOCs issued against Rhea Chakraborty and her entire family in August 2020 after the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput did not state any 'reasons' for issuance of the same and neither were the LOCs reviewed as mandated under the Consolidated Guidelines, the Bombay High Court observed.
The LOCs were issued against Rhea, her brother Showik, her father Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty, an army veteran, and her mother – Sandhya – who worked as a teacher in army schools. The LOCs were issued against them after Rajput's family filed an FIR to investigate his death in Patna and the matter was subsequently transferred to the CBI.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande observed while quashing the LOCs on Thursday, “LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other reason.”
Case Title: M/s. Jagruti Foundation, Pune v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
The Bombay High Court observed that education has become unaffordable, and the State has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure quality education reaches all the citizens of this country in order to achieve the growth and development of humanity.
“Although “education” is a pious in our culture but with change in time it has taken a different colour and has become unaffordable. It is the State's Constitutional responsibility to ensure quality education reaches all the citizens of this country to achieve the growth and development of humanity”, the court said.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain opined that granting Letter of Intent (LoI) for establishing new colleges in the State only to institutions with prior experience in education could lead to a monopolistic situation, hindering the entry of new institutions.
However, experience in running educational institutions is crucial to assess their capability to establish new ones, the court said, adding that it is essential to strike a balance to ensure a level playing field.
The court suggested, “there should be fixed parameters based on the report of the University on the basis of which the Applicants are considered for grant of Letter of Intent. One way could be granting certain points for each of the parameters and thereafter aggregating the same to come to a conclusion that a particular Institution is eligible for grant of Letter of Intent.”
Case Title: Jijaba Dashrath Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Bombay High Court asked statutory authorities to ensure they don't serve eviction notices expiring on weekends so that affected can approach the competent authority or High Court for relief as the case may be.
“These are human beings. They have families. They are not pieces on some chess board that can be moved around or even swept of the board. The last thing we want to hear is that once money is flung at these persons their concerns and their very humanity are immaterial.”
A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khatta passed the order in urgent petitions moved by former slum dwellers who were asked to vacate their accommodations of 20 years in just seven days.
A High Court bench was specially constituted to hear the occupants on Saturday as the Slum Rehabilitation Authority's Apex Grievance Redressal Committee was unavailable.
“We now propose to take the liberty of issuing a direction applicable to all authorities everywhere that no notices for eviction are to be given mentioning only hours. A specific date must be mentioned and that date cannot be over a weekend when Courts are unavailable to the affected persons.”
Minority Institution Receiving State Government Aid Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment To An Applicant Eligible Under State Government Scheme: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rahul S/o Dhondiram Meshram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court imposed Rs 25000 costs on Amravati's Holy Cross Convent English High School for denying a compassionate appointment to a man on the ground that the school has adopted a policy not to hire male peons.
“We are sensitive to the fact that the said respondent is running a School, mainly for the girls, however the said act of the respondent of managing the School for the girls by itself will not give it privileges to deny employment by adopting the gender-bias approach...the stand taken by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (school and the society managing it) that they are not granting compassionate appointment to a male member, in our opinion, also can be said to be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, the court observed.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Abhay J Mantri further held that a Minority Institution receiving aid from the state government cannot deny compassionate appointment to an applicant who is otherwise eligible as per the state government's scheme.
“Merely because the respondent No.3 is a Minority Institution, that by itself will not given it privileges to refuse the employment on compassionate ground, particularly when the petitioner is satisfying all the requisite criteria as per the scheme framed by the State Government, from whom the respondent No.3-Institution is receiving the grant-in-aid”, the court observed.
Case Title: Prashant @ Sonya Ramesh Sabale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
The Bombay High Court cancelled the bail granted by Sessions Court to a man accused of extorting and defaming a child with obscene photos after finding that he had obtained bail from sessions court during the pendency of his bail application before the HC.
Justice PK Chavan noted that in the accused obtained bail from Sessions Court, Pune despite claiming in his bail application before HC that no case for bail was pending in any other court.
“Indubitably, this Court has been misled which is a serious thing which also amounts to interference in the judicial process and, therefore, bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 10th June, 2022 to the applicant in Special Case No.273 of 2022 is cancelled”, the court observed.
The man is booked for offenses punishable under sections 354-D, 500, and 509 of the IPC and Sections 8, 12, 14, and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, as well as Section 65-B of the Information Technology Act.
Other Developments
Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra Ajit Pawar-led NCP faction filed a plea in the Bombay High Court challenging Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar's decision not to disqualify MLAs belonging to Sharad Pawar's faction of NCP. The petition was filed through Anil Bhaidas Patil, Relief and Rehabilitation Minister and whip of the Ajit Pawar's faction.
The plea claims that once Ajit Pawar's-faction was declared as the real NCP, MLAs of the rival faction ought to have been disqualified. The Speaker had not appreciated their submissions, the petitioners alleged.
The Bombay High Court asked the makers of Netflix docuseries – “Buried Truth – The Indrani Mukerjea Story” to hold a special screening for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while hearing the agency's plea for a stay on the series.
The series was set to be released on February 22, 2024; however, Netflix has undertaken to stall the release till next Thursday.