Nominal Index [Citation 186 - 196]VJ Jindal Cocoa Pvt Lt v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 186Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 187Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha Dutt 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 189Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra...
Nominal Index [Citation 186 - 196]
VJ Jindal Cocoa Pvt Lt v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188
Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha Dutt 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirtech Private Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
Shabnamjahan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
Mahatarba alias Madhvkar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
Mansi Bhavin Dharani v. Bhavin Jagdish Dharani 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
Nishant s/o Pradeep Aggrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: VJ Jindal Cocoa Pvt Lt v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
The Bombay High Court upheld HDFC Bank’s email that led to the freezing of current accounts held by cocoa manufacturer VJ Jindal Cocoa in various banks observing that since its “exposure” was over Rs. 50 crore it wasn’t permitted multiple active current accounts.
‘Exposure’ in the present context means the total credit facilities availed by a borrower.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale dismissed VJ Jindal’s petition to undo HDFC’s action on the ground that it was exempted from the relevant RBI circular since its current accounts with other banks pre-dated the HDFC account.
Case Title: Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against a student accused of giving a rape threat to the 11-month-old infant of former Indian Cricket Team Captain Virat Kohli and actor Anushka Sharma, after a no-objection from the couple.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik quashed the FIR against Hyderabad techie Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini registered by the Cyber Police under Section 354A (sexual harassment), 506 (criminal intimidation), 500 (defamation) of the IPC and Sections 67 & 67B of the IT Act 2000.
Case Title: Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188
The Bombay High Court recently held that when the grade of an employee is upgraded in his performance report, the selection committee has to reconsider him for promotion taking into account his upgraded grade.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne allowed an employee’s writ petition seeking promotion once his performance grade was upgraded.
The selection committee had reconsidered his case for promotion after upgradation of his grade, but still considered his non-upgraded grade and rejected him.
Children Not Property, Parents Don’t Have Absolute Rights Over Their Destiny: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha Dutt
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
“In India, matrimonial disputes constitute the most bitterly fought adversarial litigations and a stage comes when warring couples stop seeing reasons…In such cases, court’s must exercise the parent patriae jurisdiction,” the Bombay High Court observed while making visitation arrangements in a bitterly fought, long drawn matrimonial dispute.
A division bench comprising Justices RD Dhanuka and Gauri Godse added that parents don’t have an absolute right over their child’s destiny and the most important consideration would be a child’s welfare and not the parent’s legal rights.
Case Title: Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
The Bombay High Court recently held that manufacturer of a drug cannot be prosecuted for manufacturing drugs which do not fulfil such standards that were notified by the government after the date of manufacture.
Justice Kishore C Sant of the Aurangabad bench set aside order of process against the manufacturer of Mediplus Scalp Vein Set, a device used for intravenous injections or taking blood samples observing –
The court noted that scalp vein set was notified as a "Drug" and standards were prescribed for it by the government in 2005 while the sample collected by the Drug Inspector was manufactured in 2004.
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirtech Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
The Bombay High Court held that if a plaintiff is alleging breach of confidentiality by the defendants, it has to produce the confidential information before the court in a sealed cover.
Justice Manish Pitale observed that the High Court cannot verify the allegations of breach of confidentiality without perusing the confidential information.
The court vacated its ex-parte interim order in favour of Rochem Separation Systems in a copyright infringement suit against Nirtech Private Limited.
Single Working Woman Can Adopt Child Under Juvenile Justice Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shabnamjahan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order disallowing a woman from adopting her sister’s child on the ground that she was a single working woman and wouldn’t be able to give personal attention to the child. The judge’s views displayed a medieval conservative mindset on family, the High Court said.
Justice Gauri Godse observed that a divorcee or a single parent was eligible to adopt as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the district court’s job was merely to ascertain, if all necessary criteria were fulfilled.
Case Title: Mahatarba alias Madhvkar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
Taking strong exception to an education officer’s un-responsiveness towards a government pleader in an education matter, the Bombay High Court issued a bailable warrant against the Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The court set the bail amount at Rs. 15,000 payable by the officer personally.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale noted that the AGP had written several emails seeking instructions to file an affidavit in the matter but the officer failed to acknowledge the email, let alone respond.
“We refuse to let the Additional Government Pleaders at our Bar or the Government Pleader’s office be compromised in this manner by serving employees of the State Government. It is not possible to accept that the AGP who appears or that the Government Pleader himself or his office can be continuously embarrassed before the Court. They have been seeking instructions since July 2022 and we are now in April 2023.”
Case Title: Mansi Bhavin Dharani v. Bhavin Jagdish Dharani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
The Bombay High Court held that a family court cannot pass a divorce decree on admission assuming that the marriage is dissolved in the hearts and minds of the parties when the parties have not led any evidence or withdrawn their allegations against each other.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice Gauri Godse set aside a divorce decree on admission passed by the family court.
Case Title: Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR against a young Kashmiri professor booked for his WhatsApp status terming the abrogation of Article 370 a “black day” for Jammu and Kashmir.
A division bench comprising Justices Sunil Shukre and MM Sathaye observed that the status was posted “without giving any reason and without making any critical analysis of the step taken by the Central Government towards abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.”
Therefore prima-facie the professor had committed an offence punishable under Section 153A of the IPC (promotion of enmity between two groups), the bench observed.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Ex-BrahMos Engineer Booked For Spying For ISI
Case Title: Nishant s/o Pradeep Aggrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Nishant Aggrawal, a former BrahMos engineer accused of spying for Pakistan's ISI.
Justice Anil S Kilor of the Nagpur bench held that prima facie, there is nothing to suggest that Aggrawal committed the alleged acts with intention.
The court noted that Aggrawal has been in jail for more than 4 years and 6 months and the maximum punishment in this case would be 14 years.
The court said that the trial is not likely to begin in the near future.
Other Developments
After singer Mika Singh and entertainer Rakhi Sawant publicly made amends, Singh has approached the Bombay High Court to quash with consent the 17-year-old case against him for forcibly kissing Sawant twice at his birthday party in 2006.
Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the new amendment to Information Technology Rules that empower the Central Government to identify 'Fake News' about itself in the social media.
A division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale directed the Centre to file its reply by April 19, detailing the factual background of the Rules and the reasons for the amendment and posted the matter for hearing on April 21.
Judicial process should not be a means for needless harassment of a celebrity to satisfy the vendetta of a complainant who assumed he was insulted, the Bombay High Court observed in its detailed order quashing a case against actor Salman Khan and his bodyguard.
The Bombay High Court issued notice to all 11 respondents including cricketer Prithvi Shaw in influencer Sapna Gill's plea seeking quashing of Shaw’s extortion FIR against her.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye sought respondent’s reply in six weeks.