Nominal Index [Citation 494 - 505]Film Farm India Pvt Ltd v. ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 494Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 495Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 496Sameer Baijanath Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 497Zakir Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra...
Nominal Index [Citation 494 - 505]
Film Farm India Pvt Ltd v. ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
Sameer Baijanath Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
Zakir Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav (Deceased) Through his legal heir v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
Sanjay Nathmal Jain v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Film Farm India Pvt Ltd v. ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
The Bombay High Court refused to enforce an award of the Western India Film Producers’ Association (WIFPA) directing Balaji Telefilms' OTT unit ALTT to pay Rs. 1,57,00,000/- to makers of the web series “Mentalhood”.
Justice SM Modak held that the decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee of WIFPA cannot be enforced as an arbitral award in the absence of an arbitration agreement between parties of the dispute, if one of the parties is not a member of WIFPA.
Case Title: Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
The Bombay High Court granted octogenarian Telugu poet Varavara Rao permission to travel to Hyderabad for seven days to undergo cataract surgery in one of his eyes.
Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak further asked Rao to seek permission afresh from the trial court to undergo surgery for the other eye.
Rao had approached High Court in November 2022 against the Special NIA’s court order refusing permission.
The poet is facing allegations under the UAPA over alleged Maoist links. The Supreme Court on August 10 2022 had granted him permanent medical bail but constrained him to stay within the limits of the city of Greater Mumbai. The court however, granted him liberty to approach the concerned NIA court for permission to go to Hyderabad.
Case Title: Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by a 90-year-old woman seeking removal of a statue of Maharshi Dhondo Keshav Karve, a reformer and Bharat Ratna recipient, installed by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) near her property.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata stated that a memorial or a monument is sufficiently a public purpose, which need not only be a public utility, and the petitioner did not show that installation of statues by a public body is forbidden.
Case Title: Sameer Baijanath Joshi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
The Bombay High Court held that redevelopment of an existing permanent structure near Signal Transmitting Station, Juhu, is allowed as long as the redeveloped structure adheres to the limit of 15.24 meters height specified in a 1976 notification issued under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (WoD Act).
The signal transmitting station in Juhu is a pre-World War II military installation for wireless communication. Several redevelopment projects in Juhu have been halted due to the Army's objection to construction near it.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla paved way for redevelopment of Mumbai’s Chandan Cinema situated near the Signal Transmitting Station which was held up due to denial of no objection certificate (NOC) by the military authorities.
Case Title: Zakir Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
Observing that mere cancellation of return flight tickets is not a suspicious activity, the Bombay High Court discharged a man accused of conspiring to illegally transport two children to USA on forged immigration documents.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that allegations against the accused, one Zakir Yusuf Shaikh, do not show his knowledge of the conspiracy, and in the absence of sufficient material against him, the trial would be an empty formality.
The court quashed the order of the Sessions court refusing to discharge the accused from the case. The man was booked for allegedly buying or disposing of any person as a slave, cheating and forgery, under sections 370, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471, read with section 120B of the IPC.
Custodian Of Enemy Property Cannot Halt Project On Land Not Vested In Him: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
The Custodian of Enemy Properties doesn’t have the power to issue prohibitory orders against any land parcel suspected to be an ‘enemy property’ until the Custodian is vested with the property under the Enemy Properties Act, 1968 the Bombay High Court held.
Properties owned by Pakistani Nationals and acquired by the Indian government are known as ‘enemy properties.’
A division bench comprising Justices Sunil Shukre and Rajesh Patil quashed all communications issued by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property directing the Tehsildar and Collector to Mira- Bhayander Municipal Corporation, to issue stop work notices to a development project undertaken by Neelkamal Realtors.
Case Title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice M.M. Sathaye, while adjudicating a petition filed in Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) & Ors., has stayed the Suspension Order issued against an Insolvency Professional (“IP”) by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”). The Inspection Order issued by IBBI against the IP was signed by Assistant General Manager alone, whereas, as per IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017, any action, inspection or investigation order has to be issued by the Executive Director of IBBI. As per the IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017, any action, inspection or investigation order has to be issued by the Executive Director of IBBI. The Bench noted that prima facie the Inspection Order was signed by the Assistant General Manager in place of the Executive Director.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
The Bombay High Court refused to grant bail on medical grounds to Housing Development Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) promoter Rakesh Wadhawan who is booked in the multi crore Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank loan fraud case and lodged in Arthur Road Central Prison, Mumbai.
Rakesh Wadhawan and his son Sarang face allegations of fraudulently obtaining loans of Rs 2,558 crore from PMC Bank and failing to repay the due amount of Rs. 4,435 crores including interest.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the recommendations from doctors did not indicate an urgent need for any specific medical procedure or surgery and that the prescribed course of treatment was primarily medication and management.
Case Title: Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav (Deceased) Through his legal heir v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
After a legal battle spanning nearly four decades, the Bombay High Court brought an end to a dispute involving ten rounds of litigation between the owner of agricultural land and his tenants regarding payment of accumulated rent of Rs. Rs. 3,15,250.
Justice Sandeep V Marne refused to condone a delay of over one and a half years by the tenants in filing an appeal against the Tehsildar’s 2018 order, which directed them to pay rent accumulated since 1985 to the landlord within three months. The court, despite acknowledging that this length of delay is typically not considered inordinate, deemed it immaterial in the present case.
"The issue is whether the landlord can be hauled in endless rounds of meritless litigations… Public policy demands that a quietus needs to be given to litigation between the parties in the present case. This is a reason why this court went into merits of the contentions that Petitioners wish to argue before SDO," the court stated.
The court noted that ordinarily, while deciding the issue of condonation of delay, it would not have gone into the merits of the case. However, the court decided to verify whether any merit exists in the tenants’ appeal before the SDO and concluded that the tenants did not have an arguable case.
Case Title: Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
Observing that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted for the construction and not the builder, the Bombay High Court directed the Indian Airforce authorities to reconsider a builder’s application for revalidation of NOC for construction of a building near the IAF Airfield in Pune.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla refuted the IAF authorities’ objection that the NOC was initially issued to another builder and, in absence of any provision of transfer in the NOC, the new builder needed to apply for a fresh NOC.
The court further held that the restrictions on constructions near the NDA Aerodrome introduced in the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015 would not be enforceable on constructions approved under a 2010 IAF Notification whose construction began within 5 years of the issuance of the NOC.
Case Title: Sanjay Nathmal Jain v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Crime Investigation Department to investigate five police officers under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC wherein tenants’ premises were demolished while they were allegedly illegally detained at the local police station and coerced into surrendering their tenancy.
Justice RM Joshi at the Aurangabad bench held the police’s acts were not in discharge of their duties and therefore no Sanction u/s 197 of the CrPC was required to prosecute them.
The High Court dismissed a clutch of petitions by the original landlord’s bother, purchasers of the property and the police officers challenging an order of a Sessions judge directing CID investigation and registration of FIR u/s 156(3) of the CrPC.
Case Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of possession of commercial quantity of ‘Charas’ under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after the weight of Charas seized from him supposedly reduced in police custody.
The prosecution claimed that the weight of Charas at the time of seizure was 1 kg and 10 grams. However, when presented before the magistrate for inventory, it weighed 1 kg only.
The court held that since the contraband seized from Nayak weighed 1 kg at the time of inventory before the Magistrate, qualifying as an intermediate quantity, the strict conditions for bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
The court clarified that whether the weight at the time of seizure or the weight before the Magistrate during inventory has to be considered for determining guilt of the accused will be decided at the time of trial.