Nominal Index [Citations 334 – 351]Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Kaalka Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr....
Nominal Index [Citations 334 – 351]
Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
Kaalka Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
Armaan Kohli v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that Tehsildar has the jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to correct status of land in the revenue record which may substantially impact the amount of compensation, even if acquisition proceedings are pending before the High Court.
"The proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are clearly independent proceedings and if they aid in determining just and fair compensation to land owners, then it cannot be said that the proceedings could not have been initiated or the orders passed by the Tahsildar deserved to be set aside, merely because proceedings pertaining to the determination of quantum of compensation are pending before this Court", Justice Manish Pitale observed in his order.
'Utter Lack of Objectivity': Bombay High Court On CWCD's Refusal To Renew Licenses of 57 Child Care Homes
Case Title: Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner of Women and Child Development (CWCD) can't refuse renewal of licenses without hearing or opportunity to correct defects to applicants. CWCD had outrightly rejected licence renewal proposals of at-least 57 NGOs under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, without a hearing or giving them an opportunity to correct their defects.
A division bench of Justices Magesh Patil and Sandeep Marne at Aurangabad directed the CWCD to re-consider proposals of at least nine NGOs who approached the court.
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Conducts Sensitive Research In Nuclear Science: Bombay HC Upholds Rejection Of Candidature Citing Criminal Antecedents
Case title: Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
The Bombay High Court upheld cancellation of a man's candidature for a post at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for non-disclosure of a criminal case against him observing that honesty and integrity are the inherent requirements in public employment.
Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature for a post at the BARC.
Prima Facie Deep Involvement With RDF & Maoist Activities: Bombay High Court Refuses Bail To DU Professor Hany Babu In Elgar Parishad Case
Case title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to Delhi University Professor Hany Babu accused in Elgar Parishad case observing that mobilising rallies and co-ordinating the defence of convicted professor GN Saibaba was not just helping a fellow academic, but prima facie following a leftist handbook.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar said that their opinion about Babu not just being a mere sympathiser but being someone who was given substantial responsibility, at RDF, an alleged front organisation, was based on broad probabilities.
Bombay High Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Portions of Union Minister Narayan Rane's Residence Within Two Weeks (livelaw.in)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
The Bombay High Court refused to direct BMC to consider regularising 300% additional construction at Union Minister Narayan Rane's Juhu residence. The court gave two weeks to demolish the illegal portions.
Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata said that the corporation is "bent upon" considering the application (for regularisation) irrespective of the provisions of law. However, allowing the petition would be "encouragement" of wholesome unauthorised construction.
Employee Deemed To Be Suspended Due To Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Back Wages Upon Acquittal, Unless Suspension Wholly Unjustified: Bombay HC
Case Title: Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
The Bombay High Court held that an employee deemed to be suspended due to criminal charges is not entitled to back wages despite his acquittal as a deemed suspension is not a discretionary decision and cannot be considered unjustified.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nitin W. Sambre dismissed a writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order upholding Disciplinary Authority's decision to not grant the petitioner back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School
Case Title: Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court refused to allow petitioner to change his date of birth in the school record stating that only obvious errors can be corrected after the student has left the school.
Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pednekar refused to entertain a writ petition praying for change in date of birth in the school record after he had left the school.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bollywood Actor Armaan Kohli In Drug Case
Case Title: Armaan Kohli v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Bollywood actor Armaan Kohli in an illicit drug traffic case. Justice Nitin W. Sambre directed that Kohli be released on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties.
Category For Premature Release More Beneficial To Convict Will Apply If Case Falls Under Two Different Categories Within Same Guidelines: Bombay HC
Case Title: Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court held that number of persons who committed the murder is irrelevant in cases related to trade union activities while categorizing the case for the purpose of premature release of life convicts. Even assuming that it falls under both the categories, the more beneficial category will apply to the petitioner's case.
"What is relevant is murder should have been committed as a result of trade union activities and therefore, whether murder has been committed by more than one person/group of persons is totally irrelevant", the court held.
Air India Privatisation: Bombay HC Says Writ Petitions Against Airline No Longer Maintainable
Case Title: R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions filed by employees against Air India Limited (AIL) are no longer maintainable due to subsequent privatisation of AIL even though they were maintainable at the inception of the case. The change in the status of the 'authority' against whom the writ was initially claimed plays a significant role in determining the issue of maintainability, said the court.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School
Case Title: Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court granted protection to a retired Junior Assistant (Class II officer) against recovery of excess salary and benefits erroneously paid to him by the Water Resources Department of the Government of Maharashtra during his service.
"We have two very strong reasons in the present case for arriving at a conclusion that the recovery would be arbitrary, viz. unduly long period of 23 years of recovery and retirement of the petitioner", the court held.
Mere Reference To Proposal Containing An Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Signed By One Party, Would Not Amount To An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court has ruled that in an agreement executed by both the parties which contains independent terms and conditions, a mere reference to a proposal containing an arbitration clause which was unilaterally signed by one party, would not amount to an arbitration agreement coming into existence between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that for an arbitration agreement to come into existence, there must be a document incorporating an arbitration clause or agreement which is executed by both the parties, showing a consensus ad-idem between them.
S.24 HMA | Divorce Decree Granted Without Deciding Application For Maintenance Pendente Lite: Bombay HC Remands Case Back To Family Court
Case Title: Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has remanded a divorce case back to the family court after the family court granted divorce without deciding interim application for maintenance pendente lite filed by the wife.
"The directions are also required to be issued to the trial Court to decide the interim application preferred by the appellant for maintenance pendente lite in accordance with the provision of Hindu Marriage Act", the court said.
Bombay HC Full Bench Quashes Notices Transferring 'Cherry Picked' NGT Cases From Goa to Delhi
Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
A full bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed administrative notices issued by the Registrar General of the National Green Tribunal "cherry picking" cases relating to Goa from the Western Zone bench at Pune and transferring them to the Northern bench at New Delhi.
Making various observations on the lack of clarity about the reasons why it was being done as well as the lack of jurisdiction for doing so, the full bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justices Gautam Patel and M S Sonak also called the notices violative of Article 14 and suffering "from the impermissible vice of manifest arbitrariness."
'Navratri A Festival Dear To People': Bombay High Court Junks PIL Challenging Falguni Pathak's Program At Sports Ground
Case title: Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court dismissed a journalist's PIL against the commercial exploitation of a recreational ground in Kandivali for holding singer Falguni Pathak's annual Navratri program between September 26 to October 5.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, under which the permission was granted, was not challenged. Under the Section, the planning authority is allowed to temporarily change the usage of the public ground for commercial exploitation.
Watchmen In Aided Private Ashram Schools Entitled To Equal Pay Scale As Those In Govt Ashram Schools: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court recently directed the state government to extend the pay scale of watchmen in government Ashram Schools to temporary watchmen in private aided Ashram Schools, relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The court held that the petitioners are required to be granted minimum pay in the pay scale admissible for the post of Watchmen/security guards/multitasking staff engaged in the government ashram schools.
Bombay HC Paves Way For Uddhav Thackeray Led Shiv Sena To Hold Dussehra Rally At Shivaji Park, Rejects Shinde Faction's Intervention
Case Title: The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena to hold the party's annual Dussehra rally at Shivaji Park on October 5, 2022.
The court set aside BMC's order refusing permission and directed the civic body to grant permission from October 2-6, 2022.
A division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also rejected the intervention application filed by Sada Sarvankar, sitting MLA from Shinde faction opposing the petition, stating that Sarvankar has no locus in the case.
Cannot Recover 'Excess Retiral Benefits' After Allowing Officer To Continue Beyond Retirement Date: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) whose pension and gratuity was reduced by the local body after a government clarification said only public health department doctors were to be given extension of two years in service beyond the date of retirement. The court directed the TMC to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner. The court also restrained the TMC from recovering any further amount from the petitioner's pension.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the decision in a writ petition challenging reduction in pension and gratuity and recovery of excess payment from his retiral benefits.
Other Developments
Case Title: Sohan Rajeev Agate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to explain the logic behind imposing fines for violation of mask mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A division bench Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing two PILs seeking refund of fines collected by the state for violation of the mask mandate.
Chief Justice Datta asked the BMC to explain the basis in law for making it compulsory to wear masks and imposing fines on people who violate the mandate. "If the government has mandated masks for the greater good, then the court will not interfere," the CJ said.
Prima Facie Court Machinery 'Abused' To Demolish Decades Old Crematorium: Bombay HC Pulls Up District Collector Mumbai Suburban, MCZMA
Case Title: Chetan Kodarlal Vyas v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court reprimanded the District Collector Mumbai Suburban and the MCZMA over demolition of an old crematorium in Mumbai without serving any notice to the local fisherfolk who built it.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar saw red over the manner in which the authorities obtained demolition orders from a coordinate bench when the CJ was unavailable.
"Prima Facie we are satisfied that machinery of the court has been abused to ensure removal of the crematorium," the CJ said in his order.
Bombay HC Asks BMC Chief To Present Plan On Repairing Pothole-ridden Roads
Case Title: Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashta and Ors.
The Bombay High Court asked Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Chief Iqbal Chahal to prepare a roadmap on how he plans to get 20 worst pothole-ridden roads in Mumbai repaired.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar asked Chahal to be present before the court at a date of his convenience next week to present the roadmap. In the meantime, he is supposed to get a survey conducted of the roads.
Resort Owner Who Purchased Land From Former Maharashtra Minister Anil Parab Approaches Bombay High Court Against Demolition Order
Case Title: Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Union of India
A businessman approached the Bombay High Court to save his resort from demolition over alleged Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) violations. The resort is built on land allegedly purchased from Maharashtra's former Transport Minister Anil Parab.
'Utter Violation Of Right To Live In Peace': PIL in Bombay High Court Seeks Ban On Advertising Non-Veg Food
Case Title: Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors.
Three Jain religious charitable trusts approached the Bombay High Court with a PIL urging the court to order a ban on advertisements of non-veg food, terming such promotions as an "utter violation" of the right to live in peace.
The petition prays for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to frame rules or guidelines to ban advertisement of non-veg food in any media. The petition also prays for a direction to the respondents to print warning on the packaged non-veg products stating, "Consumption of non-veg food is harmful to health and environment".