Nominal Index Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed...
Nominal Index
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur
UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager
Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs
Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra
The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh
Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors
Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors
Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning
Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors.
Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited
Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra
Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra
The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner
Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra
Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.
Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions
Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra
High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others
Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Round-Up
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the work that a victim was performing before the accident has relevance to the determination of the question as to whether he is permanently incapacitated to perform the work.
The Court observed that the distinction between physical disability and functional disability has to be kept in mind while determining whether the applicant has suffered 100% loss of income.
Case Title: UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court ruled that initiation of investigation by the Goods and Services Tax authorities after June 30, 2019 – deadline for Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) – cannot be a bar for the authorities to consider a declaration filed by a party under the SVLDR scheme.
Navi Mumbai based UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, had on September 9, 2019, filed an Electronic Declaration form under SVLDRS-1 on the website of Central Board of Excise and Customs website under 'voluntary category' which was rejected on the ground that investigation against the petitioner had been initiated before they opted for the said scheme.
Case Title: Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Observing that an entity cannot be blacklisted from participating in future contracts without being allowed a proper opportunity to defend itself and without following the due process of law, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a company in a contract with the Railways.
The court held that the railway officials had not given the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his stand by failing to mention the possibility of debarment in the show-cause notice.
4. Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court
Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The limitation period for considering an appeal (reference) against a land acquisition order must be calculated from the date an application was first filed and not from the date a missing appeal copy was reconstructed and submitted by the applicant, the Bombay High Court held.
The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't mean the application was filed later.
Case Title: Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Director of a company accused of abetting the suicide of an employee, observing that all the allegations seemed to be part of "normal course of business" and that a company was "entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company."
In the order, Justice Sarang Kotwal observed that the deceased, Nikhil Joshi, was taking treatment for stress management and was in a disturbed state of mind.
"Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide," the court observed.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
An extra-judicial confession made voluntarily, free from threat or inducement, carries the presumption of truth, Bombay High Court observed adding that depending on the facts of the case, a confession doesn't need to be presumed as weak piece of evidence.
Other considerations that weighed in with the bench were that the accused brought forth his crime by confessing to his friend, the accused's family neither tried to destroy evidence nor made attempts to conceal the accused. They also did not try to win over the friend to whom the extra judicial confession was made. In fact, the brother helped the police arrest the accused.
Case Title: Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, acquitted 20 persons in a murder case, citing identical and parrot-like version of all the star prosecution witnesses, calling it as "humanly impossible".
A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Pushpa Ganediwala, observed in the judgement, "It's difficult to believe that six eyewitnesses deposed in an identical fashion with each and every minute detail. In our considered opinion, it's humanly impossible. Not a single independent witness (except police and medical witness) was examined even when it is not the case that the incident occurred in isolation or during late night hours."
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Even if the appellate court is inclined to re-evaluate and re-appreciate evidence on record to take a different approach, such interference is not justified when the trial court's view is a possible view, not marred with perversity or unreasonableness and thus, the appellate Courts must exercise a great deal of caution before disturbing the factual findings recorded by the trial court, Bombay High Court held.
Case Title: Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court set aside a demand notice issued by the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) against Essar Shipping Ltd, though the court upheld the validity of the circular under which the demand was made. The court held that the circular was restricted only to those cases where the claims were "being finalised" and therefore would not apply to Essar's case as it was already finalised by the concerned authorities.
The notice and the reminder which were set aside by the HC sought Rs 27.40 crore from the company comprising customs duty and interest on the basis of the benefits already availed and utilised on account of its entitlement under the Served from India (SFI) Scheme.
Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court took strong exception to several instances of malpractices by Notaries, ordered them to pay costs while also directing the Department of Legal Affairs to consider certain recommendations to the draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill, 2021.
The bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, which was hearing a clutch of petitions, further observed how Notaries were operating from private cars and taxis outside the Bombay High Court and said "legal profession cannot be allowed to function from the streets."
Case Title: Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
In a judgement earlier this month, the Bombay High Court quashed a notice issued by Income Tax authorities for the financial year 2003-2004 against Tata Sons Ltd – holding company of Tata Group's Companies.
The bench observed that in case a company's income tax assessment was completed under section 143(3) and is proposed to be reopened after four years, an additional condition is required to be satisfied. Authorities need to record a satisfaction that the income escaped assessment because of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Whether these jurisdictional conditions are satisfied, has to be ascertained from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
Since the notice issued to Tata did not justify the reasons to show that income had escaped assessment on account of the company's failure and reasons cited by the Assessing Officer merely showed "change of opinion" on the very same material, the notice deserved to be quashed.
12. Court Of Additional Sessions Judge Not Empowered To Try Offences Under IBC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
In a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not "Special Court" in terms of Section 236 of the IB Code to try offences under the IB Code.
Accepting the contentions of the petitioners, Justice Sandeep K Shinde clarified that the jurisdiction to try offences under the IB Code lies with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class established as a Special Court under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 (as amended in 2017) and not with the Court of Additional Sessions Judge established under the same provision.
Case Title: Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
While enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the Bombay High Court held that violation of a statute would not necessarily violate the fundamental policy of Indian law and the fundamental policy test must be applied according to the circumstances and facts of each case.
Further stating that poor reasoning to reject a claim would not attract any public policy ground, unless the most basic notion of justice is offended, Justice A.K. Menon held that to lead to a violation of the fundamental public policy of India, a high threshold of 'egregious circumstances' like bribery, corruption or fraud and like circumstances that tamper with the most basic notions of morality and justice would apply.
14. Don't Register Writ Petition That Doesn't Set Out Specific Grounds – Bombay High Court To Registry
Case Title: Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
The Bombay High Court has directed its Registry to not register any writ petition unless the same sets out specific grounds on which the petition is being moved and warned the department of strict action if any lapse was viewed in that regard.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice NB Suryawanshi, sitting in the Aurangabad Bench, directed, "The Registry shall ensure that, in future, no Writ Petition is registered unless specific grounds are set out therein upon which the writ petition is moved for grant of relief, as claimed by the petitioner. Any lapse in this regard will be viewed strictly."
Case Title: Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ordered the District Supply officer (DSO) to restore authorisation of four Mahila Bachat Gats or Women Self Development Groups to maintain fair price shops.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that their licence to run fair price shops was cancelled on "clumsy" and "non-existent" grounds and the Tehsildar to the highest level in the State government, deprived these organisations the opportunity of the empowering women in rural areas.
"I cannot refrain myself from commenting upon the approach of the State Authorities right from the level of the Tahsildar to the highest level of the State Government….. Woman empowerment being the motto of the State, in utter contrast, in this case the State Authorities have undermined the four bachat gats and in a flippant manner have deprived them an opportunity of empowering several women in rural area who had come together and formed a bachat gat who was allotted authorization to run the fair price shop.
Case Title: The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Observing that a party cannot be expected to preserve evidence/record intact for a very long period and it cannot be made to suffer gross delay on the part of tax authorities, the Bombay High Court has set aside a show-cause notice issued 15 years back against Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and SM Modak, in an order passed earlier this week, observed, "It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the time of hearing of the Show-Cause Notice. The Respondent having issued the Show-Cause notice, it is their duty to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer."
Case Title : Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
The Bombay High Court ruled that an extra-judicial confession would be made to a person in whom the maker of that statement reposes faith, and making it to a stranger or a person to whom the maker was only acquainted, was improbable.
A division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan, while acquitting an accused convicted in 2010, observed, "Extra Judicial confession necessarily is to be made to a person in whom the maker of the statement reposes faith. Moreover, the accused had given graphic details of the act he committed, including the role of each of the accused persons and how they had killed both the deceased. It is rather tough to accept that the accused would make an extra-judicial confession to a stranger, passing by the road, who is only acquainted."
18. Maharashtra Govt's CCTV Project In Police Stations A 'Farce', Rs 60 Cr Wasted : Bombay High Court
Case Title : Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
The Bombay High Court expressed its displeasure over a report submitted by the Maharashtra government on the status of installation of CCTV cameras inside police stations across the state and said the whole process was a farce and the money allotted for the project has been wasted.
A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and M N Jadhav noted that out of 1089 police stations, CCTV systems are installed in only 547 Police Stations since only two contractors have been selected to execute the project worth Rs 60 crore of installing CCTV systems. The court was further informed that 453 CCTV cameras which were recently installed are non-functional.
19. Maharashtra Govt Appoints DGP From UPSC Panel, Bombay High Court Disposes Of Advocate's PIL
Case Title: Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
High Court disposed of an advocate's PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police in Maharashtra from the three names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) panel after the State appointed IPS officer Rajnish Seth as the new DGP on February 18.
The state decided to reconsider its decision after the High Court observed that the state had gone out of it's way to push the case of its senior most IPS officer - Sanjay Pandey's name for DGP.
Case Title: Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Observing that a PIL filed by rival political party members (BJP and MNS) against the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition in Maharashtra was "politically motivated" and without "necessary disclosures" the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner
The bench held that under Article 243ZA(2) the state is permitted to make provisions regarding election to Municipalities. In Maharashtra, the State Election Commissioner may by order delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Corporation not below the rank of the Ward Officer according to section 18(2) of the MMC Act.
The High Court held that according to an SEC order from January 27, 2005 there is a bar on re-drawing the limits of a municipal corporation six months before the election. However, "The bar does not apply to alteration of Ward boundaries within the Corporation area."
Case Title: Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Observing that affinity test is not the litmus test for a Caste Validity Certificate when family members' documents from as far back as the year 1927 show the same caste, the Bombay High Court directed issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner before the court.
"In our view, if anyone claims he belongs to a particular caste, one cannot expect that such person should use traditions and traits of that community in his day to day life, as due to modernisation, the present lifestyle of particular community may not match with traditional characteristics of their tribe community. The affinity test is not a litmus test," a division bench ruled recently.
The bench, by the abovementioned observation, also negated the Caste Scrutiny Committee's observations that the petitioners dialect of 'impure Marathi' was differed from the Thakur community's dialect. Moreover, the petitioner's festival and marriage rituals were performed the Hindu way instead of the traditional Thakur community way.
Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
The court protected actor Amitabh Bachchan and his wife Jaya Bachchan for 11 weeks over notices for acquisition of a part of their Juhu land for road widening. This is the same plot on which their bungalow Prateeksha stands.
It directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide a February 17, 2022 representation made by the family within six weeks. If required by the petitioners or the commissioner, a personal hearing may be given, the bench said.
The Bachchans had contended that the notices fall under a section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act that is inconsistent with safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore void.
Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
There can be no prohibition on a film's exhibition in the absence of a challenge to the censor certificate issued by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), the Bombay High Court held refusing any reliefs in a clutch of petitions against the movie Gangubai Kathiawadi which was due for release on February 25.
"The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest," a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed dismissing two PILs and disposing of a petition.
Case Title: Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra government's decision making it mandatory for all shops and establishments in the state to display signboards in Marathi written in the Devanagri script, and rejected a petition challenging the decision with cost.
"A Public purpose is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. There is a broader public purpose and rationale. Marathi may be the official language of the state government, but it is an undeniably common language and mother tongue of the state… It has its own extremely rich and diverse cultural traditions extending to every field of endeavour from literature to theatre and beyond. There are texts in Marathi which are expressed and written in Devanagri," the division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed.
Case Title: Kishor Ramesh Sohoni Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
The Bombay High Court recently directed the Reserve Bank of India to replace a man's demonetized notes worth Rs 1.6 lakh with new and valid currency notes.
The division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar passed the order in the petition filed by Kishor Sohoni, who had deposited the said amount, in cash, with the police station, pursuant to Court orders, prior to demonetization.
After the Government of India Notification of 8th November 2016 which demonetized certain currency notes, the Petitioner said that he believed that since his cash was with an authority it was protected from demonetization. However, when the Magistrate directed the Petitioner on 20th March 2017 to collect the money from the police station, he was handed the old currency notes, all by then demonetized.
Case Title: High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
In a landmark judgement the Bombay High Court issued a slew of directions regarding action to be taken against illegal construction and in the event of building collapses. The court emphasized the need for mass public housing.
The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to take action prosecute officers found to be aiding the non-removal of illegal construction beyond six months under Municipal laws, in addition the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, apart from initiating disciplinary proceedings.
It held that for any new slum project, an NOC stating that the land is not required for public purpose would be necessary. Moreover, if the land is required for public purpose, it must be cleared within a year and slum dwellers can be relocated in Mumbai and neighbouring areas.
The court also held that the MCGM, being the planning authority, was not barred from implementing provisions of the MMC Act and the MRTP Act just because an area is declared a slum. This would especially apply if the structures are dilapidated and/or in any manner unauthorized.
Case Title: Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw 2022 (Bom) 54
Despite finding irregularities and political influence by Sharad Pawar and his family members in extending largesse to Maharashtra's only private hill station project called Lavasa, the HC dismissed the petition challenging the project on the ground of delay.
"At this distance of time, when even Lavasa Corporation's existence is under a cloud, the contentions as raised by the amicus as well as the petitioner as regards inertia to call for tender/auction, unlawful permissions and unauthorized change of rates, in the facts of this case, are reduced to mere academic interest rather than of practical importance. The objection relating to gross delay assumes importance in view of several subsequent or intervening events after accrual of the cause of action to move the Court. Although the cause of action arose from 1996, the petitioner approached the Court for the first time in 2011, and thereafter in 2013 and finally in 2018," the bench observed.
28. Child Born Out Of POCSO Crime A "Victim" As Defined Under Section 2(wa) CrPC : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Reducing the life sentence awarded to a rape convict to 10 years, the Bombay High Court directed him to pay compensation to the child born out of his illicit acts observing that the baby was also "victim" as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
The victim had not only been abandoned by the appellant but also by her real mother(PW 1). They did not stop there but had put the life of the newly born child into jeopardy by sending him in an Orphanage. In view of Section 2(w a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. The child born to the victim is indeed her legal heir and also a victim in view of the definition of "victim" and therefore, he must be adequately compensated for as it was the appellant who is responsible for bringing him in this world and then abandoning him at the mercy of an Orphanage.
Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022 [Citations 1-27]
Important Updates
The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of a "shocking" news report about the pitiable conditions in which young girls from a village in Satara District in Maharashtra are forced to take the arduous journey to school, in a boat and then through a dense forest.
"..the laudable moto 'beti bachao, beti padhao' can be achieved only by providing a safe passage and a friendly atmosphere and environment for the girl children by the State," the bench of Justices Prasanna Varale and Anil Kilor observed and directed the High Court Registry to place the matter before the appropriate bench.
"Irresponsible Social Media Use Rampant" - Mumbai Court Directs Clubhouse App Case Accused to Undergo Counselling
Case Title: Yash Sanjay Kumar vs the State of Maharashtra
Observing that irresponsible use of social media is rampant among youngsters, a Metropolitan Magistrate's court directed law student Yash Kumar, accused in the Clubhouse App Case, to undergo counselling for appropriate general and social media behaviour.
"…Irresponsible use of social media is rampant. People and particularly the young generation in their teens [are] ignoring etiquettes and mannerism insulting every member of society and every corner of social life, including religion, race, gender, etc." Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Singh Rajput observed in the order granting him bail.
Case Title: Dilip Lunawat vs State of Maharashtra
A petition in the Bombay High Court filed by the father of a medical student seeks Rs 1,000 crore compensation alleging that his daughter died due to side effects of the Covid-19 vaccine.
The respondents in the plea include Covishield vaccine manufacturer Serum Institute of India, its partner Bill Gates along with State and Union Authorities.
Petitioner Dilip Lunawat claims that his daughter Snehal Lunawat, a senior lecturer at a Medical College in Nagpur took the Covishield vaccine on January 28, 2021 and died due to it's side effects a month later on March 1, 2021.
Principal Advisor to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra -Sitaram Kunte, earlier the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) accepted before the Enforcement Directorate that then Home Minister Anil Deshmukh would send "unofficial lists" of names of police officers for transfers and postings in Maharashtra, a record of which was not officially maintained.
Kunte's statement is part of the Enforcement Directorate's supplementary charge sheet against Deshmukh, who was arrested on November 2, 2021, and is currently in judicial custody. Apart from Deshmukh, his sons Hrishikesh and Salil, Bhavik Panjwani, and eight companies that allegedly laundered money are also named in "bribe money laundering case." Fourteen others were earlier named in the charge sheet.
Param Bir Singh, former Mumbai Police Commissioner, told the Enforcement Directorate that he received instructions not only from then Home Minister Anil Deshmukh but also from Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his son and a Cabinet Minister Aditya Thackeray on the point of reinstating tainted cop Sachin Waze back to the Mumbai Police.
Singh's statement is part of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate investigating a money laundering case against Deshmukh.
A Sessions Court at Kankavali, Sindhudurg, has rejected the bail application filed by Nitesh Rane, Bhartiya Janata Party's local MLA and Union Minister Narayan Rane's son.
"Two accused are still absconding. There is a possibility of economic dealing/exchange of money. Therefore, for effective investigation of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Furthermore, 11 criminal cases are shown to be registered against the applicant including offence against public servants. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the incomplete investigation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary," the judge observed.
The Bombay High Court said that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, where the victims are minor, the trial court should complete the deposition of the victim as expeditiously as possible.
"In cases where the victims are minor, POCSO Courts should atleast complete the examination of the victim/prosecutrix, as expeditiously as possible, lest the victims who are minor forget the incident, due to passage of time, giving advantage to the accused," Justice Revati Mohite Dere observed while hearing a case where the trail was expedited by HC in October 2019, but only one witness was examined by the court, who was not the victim in the case.
The Bombay High Court directed the National Investigation Agency to respond to a review application filed by three accused in the Bhima Koregaon–Elgar Parishad Case seeking bail and factual corrections in the order refusing them default bail.
In an order passed on December 1, 2021, the HC had denied default bail to the petitioners and five of their co-accused on the ground that they had not filed their default bail applications within the stipulated period, which is after 60 days of their arrest and before filing of the charge sheet.
All the eight who were denied relief claimed that denial of bail was on account of a factual error; as just like Sudha Bharadwaj who was grnated bail in the same HC judgement, they had also filed default bail applications in the trial could within the stipulated period.
The intention of the mastermind in rationalist Narendra Dabholkar's murder case, Virendrasinh Tawde, was to eliminate 'anti-hindus' and people opposed to Sanatan Sanstha's beliefs and customs, the Central Bureau of Investigation told the Bombay High Court while opposing Tawde's bail application in the 2013 murder case.
Tawde had allegedly conspired and hired sharp shooters to execute Dabholkar over ideological differences. The CBI affidavit says Tawde and his associates followed the teachings of 'Kshatra Dharma Sadhana,' advocated by Sanatan Sanstha, which was against alleged Evil Doers, Anti-Hindus, Dharamadrodhis and Durjans.
"The crime gave a feeling that those who do any act which the accused persons and the Sanatan Sanstha/Hindu Jan Jagruti Samiti doesn't like or tolerate, would be dealt with in a brutal manner. Such a feeling is more than sufficient to threaten the security of the people and the Nation. It had a terrorizing effect on the society," CBI's affidavit read.
Justice Pushpa Ganediwala Of Bombay High Court Resigns
Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, judge of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) resigned on Februrary 10, 2022, two days before her extended tenure as an Additional Judge was set to expire. The Supreme Court collegium did not recommend the extension of her term.
She became a district judge in 2007 and was elevated as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court on February 13, 2019, for a term of two years. In January 2021, Justice Ganediwala delivered two judgments relating to child sex abuse, which attracted widespread criticism for taking the proposition that direct skin to skin contact was necessary for constituting the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Following the controversy, the Supreme Court collegium revoked the recommendation made by it on January 20, 2021 to make her a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.
A month later, in February 2021, the Collegium recommended the extension of her term as an additional judge for one more year, instead of proposing to make her a permanent judge.
A PIL filed in the Bombay High Court challenged the Maharashtra Cabinet's recent decision to permit sale of wine in supermarkets and walk-in stores through 'self-purchase'. The petition filed by Sandip Kusalkar, who runs NGO for empowering the youth, said Maharashtra Government's decision was contrary to its de-addiction policy and a Government Resolution (GR) issued on August 17, 2011 to curb proliferation addictions in youth.
The decision will popularize and familiarize the alcohol and alcohol consumption in masses of the state. "This very objective of the Cabinet Decision is defeating the aim and object of de-glamorizing the alcohol consumption and negating the status acquired for alcohol consumption under the De- addiction policy mentioned in the said GR."
A PIL in the Bombay High Court challenged construction of any memorial in the future at the iconic Shivaji Park ground and for guidelines to protect the park in the wake of a political tussle over erecting late singing legend Lata Mangeshkar's memorial there.
The Bombay High Court issued notices to the Maharashtra Government, Collector and Municipal Commissioner of Nagpur on a plea alleging discrimination against wedding hall owners by restricting the number of guests to just 50 in Nagpur District.
The petition filed by Mangal Karyalaya & Lawn Association alleged that while guests at social gatherings were restricted, cinema halls, theatres, malls, restaurants were permitted to carry on their businesses with 50% capacity for the doubly vaccinated.
PMLA Court Grants Bail To Yes Bank Founder Rana Kapoor, Bindu Kapoor And Gautam Thapar
A special court in Mumbai granted bail to nine accused including Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor, his wife Bindu and businessman Gautam Thapar in a case related to property sale in Delhi. Kapoor and Thapar, however, won't walk out of the prison yet, as they are in custody in another case.
Special judge MG Deshpande, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), granted bail to them for Rs 5 lakh and surety for the like amount and set conditions like not to leave the country and to attend the court on all the dates.
Antilia Bomb Scare: Special NIA Court Refuses Bail To Former Encounter Specialist Pradeep Sharma
A special NIA court rejected the bail application filed by former Mumbai policeman and encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma in the Antilia bomb scare and Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran's murder case. He has been in custody since his arrest by the National Investigation Agency in June last year.
According to the charge sheet filed by the NIA in September last year, Sharma was allegedly assigned with the task of eliminating Hiran, owner of the explosives-laden car which was found abandoned near the South Mumbai residence of Industrialist Mukesh Ambani. He was allegedly paid a huge amount of cash for the task by co-accused and another former policeman Sachin Waze. Sharma is said to have executed the killing through his accomplice Santosh Shelar.
A Sessions Court granted bail to social media influencer Vikas Phatak alias Hindustani Bhau accused of instigating students of class 10 & 12 to protest against the Maharashtra Goverment's plan to conduct offline examinations. The order was passed by Addl Sessions Judge PB Jadhav.
Bhau had filed the bail application against the magistrate's order refusing him bail. During the hearing, Bhau tendered an unconditional apology for the rioting that followed the protest.
The NIA court has declined to consider Maharashtra's ex-Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's statement in the State Legislative Assembly on the issue of caste violence at Bhima Koregaon while rejecting bail applications of three accused. The then Chief Minister had spoken on the floor of the house about the presence of around 200-300 people holding saffron flags, sloganeering at the place of the caste violence on January 1, 2018.
Special Judge DE Kothalikar observed that under Section 43D (5) of the NIA Act, regarding bail, he could only rely on the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) case diary and charge-sheet to record a prima facie satisfaction of guilty before denying bail.
Case Title: The Directorate of Enforcement vs Mohammed Nawab Mohammed Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik
Observing that as per section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the offence of money laundering is "continuing in nature and it continues till such time a person [is] enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use of untainted property or use or projecting the same as untainted property" the special judge rejected the argument made on behalf of Nawab Malik that an offence from the year 1999 cannot be investigated now and custody cannot be granted.
Nawab Malik, a cabinet minister in the Maharashtra government, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on February 23, 2022 under PMLA and remanded in ED custody till March 3 by Special Judge Rahul Rokade. The Maharashtra Minister is now admitted to the State-run JJ Hospital.
Case Title: Rhea Laila Pillai vs . Leander Adrian Paes
Ruling that tennis star Leander Paes knew model and-Art of Living Instructor Rhea Pillai was married to Actor Sanjay Dutt when he started living-in with her in 2003-05, a Metropolitan Magistrate held their relationship to be 'in the nature of marriage' and declared Paes liable of causing economic and mental violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
"The consensual sexual relationship between married individual out of their relationship of marriage is not prohibited, except few exceptions…Merely because socially such a practice is unacceptable the Applicant can not be deprived of her rights," the court said and ordered Paes to pay Pillai Rs 1 lakh maintenance and Rs 50 thousand rent per month. Paes already bears all his daughter's expenses.
After two judges recused themselves from hearing petitions arising out of the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Case, Chief Justice Dipankar Datta of the Bombay High Court constituted a third bench to hear the cases at the earliest.
After Justice PB Varale's bench, which has the criminal assignment, recused from hearing matters earlier this month, the alternate bench of Justice SS Shinde also recused from taking up petitions connected to the case.
Chanda Kochhar, former Chief Executive of the ICICI Bank, has filed a Suit before the Bombay High Court against the bank seeking "specific performance of her entitlements and benefits that was unconditionally provided to her when the Bank accepted her early retirement."
According to the Suit, the Bank accepted her early retirement on October 4, 2018, and had unconditionally agreed to honour certain commitments and contractual obligations towards her entitlements and benefits, which it later "wrongfully resiled from."
The National Investigation Agency has sought dismissal of the application filed by Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira seeking bail and factual corrections in the Bombay High Court's order refusing them default bail.
In their reply tendered to the Bombay High Court, the agency cited the embargo under section 362 of CrPC to alter or review judgements once a petition is decided on merits.
Decision On Local Train Travel For Unvaccinated By Feb 25 – Maharashtra Govt To Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra government informed the Bombay High Court that it will take a final decision on permitting local train travel for unvaccinated persons by February 25, 2022.
While the State agreed to withdraw circulars & SOPs of July 15 & August 10 and 11, last year, it assured the bench that it would review subsequent circulars with similar curbs.
"We hope and trust that in keeping view of present situation committee will take well-informed decision because certain illegal decisions brazenly violated fundamental rights," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed.
Former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede filed two petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the action by Thane Collector and police for allegedly obtaining a liquor licence for his hotel through fraud and misrepresentation of personal details in 1997.
Wankhede states that he was apparently a minor of age 17 at the time of the alleged offence by his mother. Wankhede's mother passed away in 2015.
While he was granted relief and protection from coercive action in the quashing petition, a coordinate bench found no urgency in his civil plea challenging the cancellation of his liquor license.