Nominal Index [Citation 20 - 33]Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation 20 - 33]
Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr v. BITS 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited v. Extra Tech World and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. UoI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Sunil s/o late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
Reports/Judgments
Merely Commenting About Lack Of Woman's Cooking Skills Not 'Cruelty' U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court ruled that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
“In the instant case, the only allegation levelled against these Petitioners is that they had commented that Respondent No.2 does not know how to cook. Such comment does not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
A division bench comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice N.R. Borkar quashed an FIR registered under section 498A against two brothers-in-law for allegedly commenting that the complainant did not know how to cook.
The court observed that petty quarrels do not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498A. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.
Case Title: M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
The Bombay High Court held that banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) are not obligated to initiate restructuring process before classifying accounts of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in the absence of any application from the MSMEs seeking restructuring.
A division bench of Justice BP Collabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye held that notification dated May 29, 2015, under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) allowing for restructuring only applies when MSMEs approach the banks/NBFCs.
The court dismissed a group of writ petitions challenging the classification of the accounts of petitioner MSMEs, who have taken financial assistance from banks and NBFCs, as NPAs under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The challenge was on the ground that the respondent banks/NBFCs did not adhere to the procedure for restructuring outlined in the notification before classifying the MSMEs as NPAs.
Aviation Safety Norms Can't Be Relaxed For Public Authority: Bombay High Court Refuses Height Relaxation For MHADA High Rise Near Mumbai Airport
Case Title: Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court rejected Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority's (MHADA) writ petition seeking relaxation of height restrictions for a 40-floor building near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) in Mumbai.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata observed that aviation safety has nothing to do with the identity of the developer, and no relaxation of civil aviation safety norms can be granted merely because the project is proposed by a public authority.
Bombay High Court Dismisses 'Unsavory' PIL Seeking To Reduce MLAs' Salaries And Perks
Case Title: Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking reduction in perks and salaries of MLAs in Maharashtra, citing a previous judgment wherein it was held that this is a policy decision outside the domain of the court.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor criticized the petition, observing that it was full of generalized and unsavoury statements against all MLAs.
Case Title: Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr v. BITS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
The Bombay High Court set aside the punishment of cancellation of semester imposed on two students of Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Goa campus, for their involvement in the theft of items from stalls during a conference at the institute.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice MS Sonak instead directed the students to do two months of community service at an old age home in Goa.
The court held that the punishment given by the institute was disproportionate and against the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines, which emphasize reform over punitive action for student misconduct.
“Every student has the right to seek redressal from the Court of law, and the fact that students might take recourse to Courts of law cannot be a valid consideration not to revisit the penalty imposed by adhering to the UGC guidelines, which emphasises the reformative element,” the court emphasized.
Case Title: Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Bombay High Court held that a vehicle being hypothecated to a bank does not make the bank liable for procuring vehicle insurance or paying accident compensation.
Justice Shivkumar Dige dismissed an appeal against order directing vehicle owner to pay compensation to kin of deceased in a motor accident case observing –
“Mere vehicle was hypothecated to the bank, cannot be a ground to shift liability of paying compensation on the said bank. It was obligatory on the owner of vehicle to take insurance policy of the vehicle. The accident caused due to negligence of the Appellant. Hence bank cannot be hold liable to pay the compensation mere hypothecation with it.”
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court convicted and sentenced a man to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for bringing a 14-year-old girl to a red-light area in Nashik with the intention of inducing her into the business of prostitution.
Justice PK Chavan observed that the cases of inducing minors for the purpose of prostitution are on the rise, and the convict, one Vijay Bhika Dive, does not deserve sympathy.
“The offences committed by the respondent – accused are indeed serious and have it's impact on the society…It appears that the victim had reposed trust upon the respondent – accused since she used to call him as Mama. Of late, there is a rise in the cases under The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956…There respondent – accused herein had indeed committed the aforesaid offences and, therefore, he does not deserve sympathy. In order to curb such social evil, some deterrence is required”, the court observed.
The court allowed State's appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused by the sessions court and convicted him under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the IPC, and Section 5 (procuring, including or taking person for prostitution) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Case Title: Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Days after the Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL), the longest sea-bridge in India, the Bombay High Court declared that the land acquisition proceedings for a part of the project had lapsed.
While this would mean possession of the 7.13 hectares land should revert back to its original owner, in the present case, the owners agreed to accept compensation recalculated under the new Land Acquisition Act 2013.
“Once this is the statement made by Mr. Thakur, we hold that even though we have opined that the acquisition has lapsed, possession of the acquired lands shall not revert to the Petitioners, and they will only be entitled to compensation for their lands, and which shall be determined by the State by passing a fresh Award/s qua the Petitioners after following the procedure and the provisions as laid down under the 2013 Act.”
Case Title: Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Observing that “stereotypical and generalising” observations on the behaviour of transgender persons was “uncalled for,” the Bombay High Court granted bail to four transgender persons accused of harassing and assaulting a devotee at the Vitthal-Rukmini Temple in Pandharpur last month.
Justice Madhav J Jamdar noted that the observations were not even required for adjudication of the bail application.
“Transgenders are citizens of this country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of all citizens. The right to life includes right to live with dignity. Therefore, the observations which are recorded in Paragraph Nos.19 to 21 of the said impugned Order should not have been recorded and are not required or material for consideration of a Bail Application.”
The allegations included demanding money, assault and forcible disrobing owing to which the transgender persons were booked under sections 353, 332, 294, 143, 147, 149 of the IPC and section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Case Title: Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court quashed Mumbai University's decision to declare a student as ineligible for the 3-year LL.B. course after he had already completed two out of six semesters.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain emphasized that the students must be timely informed of their eligibility status, to avoid students investing time, money, and energy in a course only to be informed of ineligibility at a later stage.
Case Title: UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v. Extra Tech World and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
The Bombay High Court passed an ex-parte interim injunction against known and unknown entities allegedly operating fake websites that purport to provide PAN card services on behalf of government owned UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited (UTIITSL).
The court noted the "national importance" of PAN services and said any potential misuse of the authorization would be "highly detrimental" to UTIITSL and the national interest. It accepted UTIITSL's contention that unknown entities were infringing its copyright in the PAN card label and passing off its trademarks by masquerading as authorized agents.
“On consideration of the necessary information provided in the Interim Application, the plaintiff/applicant deserves an ad-interim ex-parte order even without service, as it is impossible to track all the defendants and effect service upon them, and with the fake websites being continued to be active, it would cause irreparable damage and severe compromise of valuable confidential data of the plaintiff and also pose a threat at a national level,” the court observed.
The order was passed by Justice Bharati Dangre on an interim application filed by UTIITSL in a copyright infringement and passing off suit against four identified defendants.
Case Title: Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court held that a change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order contain references and/or discussions to disclose its satisfaction with respect to the query raised. The only requirement is that the assessing officer ought to have considered the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act during the original assessment proceedings
Case Title: Sunil s/o late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court observed that the trial court, while convicting former Congress MLA Sunil Kedar, made observations contrary to presented evidence and ignored that Kedar himself lodged the FIR.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench suspended the sentence of Kedar, convicted in a bank scam case of over Rs. 153 Crores, stating that Kedar has raised arguable points in his appeal against conviction.
“the observation of the trial court, that no step are taken to take action, is also contrary to the evidence as the applicant (Sunil Kedar) has lodged the First Information Report prior to registration of the crime. The specific admission by the investigating officer suggesting no evidence came before him showing any transactions between the applicant and HTL indicates that the observation of the trial court showing his involvement in the conspiracy is contrary to the evidence”, the court observed.
The trial court concluded that there was a conspiracy between Kedar and officers of HTL. However, the High Court pointed out that this is contrary to the investigating officer's admission that Kedar neither invested the amount for his personal gain, nor is he anyway concerned with the transfer of that amount.
Case Title: Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students opposing Maharashtra government's notification that designates January 22, 2024, as a public holiday to mark the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
A special bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that in a country of diverse religions, the impugned decision of the State in fact fosters the principle of secularism. Referring to a catena of precedents on the subject of public holidays, the bench said,
"A consistent view has been taken by the Courts that the declaration of holidays is a matter of executive policy including those which are declared considering the requirements of the different religions. Once these are the considerations on broader public interest, such decisions cannot be in any manner labelled as arbitrary decisions. Moreover such decision is taken by the executive in fostering the sentiments as enshrined in the Constitution and in recognition of the secular principles when a holiday is being declared on any religious occasion."
The bench relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court whereby a petition challenging the concession granted by the State to allow students to cover during summer holidays for leaves taken during Ramzaan, was dismissed. It was held that different religions are followed in the State and the concession does not impede the spirit of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
High Court noted that even the Supreme Court has observed that declaration of public holidays is within the realm of executive policy.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court deferred its verdict on challenge to Rules 3(i)(II)(A) & (C) of the IT Amendment Rules, 2023 that mandate social media intermediaries like 'X' to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent users publishing information on the government's business- identified by Fact Check Unit as fake, false or misleading.
A division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale is seized of the pleas filed by political satirist Kunal Kamra, Association of Indian Magazines, News Broadcasters of Digital Association & Editor's Guild of India. The judgement is likely to be pronounced on January 31, 2024.
The Bombay High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to two women accused in an alleged cheating case filed by actor Vivek Oberoi.
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal granted temporary protection from arrest till 22nd February 2024 to Nandita Saha and Raadhika Nanda in two separate but related anticipatory bail pleas.
The pleas relate to an FIR filed by Oberoi's Chartered Accountant Deven Bafna at MIDC police station accusing the duo of cheating the actor of Rs 1.55 crore. Bafna alleged financial irregularities in a film production firm 'Anandita Entertainment LLP' jointly owned by Oberoi, Saha's son Sanjay Saha and Nanda.
The Bombay High Court issued notice to all the respondents in petitions filed by CM Eknath Shinde-led faction's pleas challenging Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker's refusal to disqualify 14 MLAs of the Uddhav Thackeray faction.
The respondents include the 14 MLAs, speaker Rahul Narwekar and the Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat.
A division bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla dictated in the order, “Issue notices on these petitions to the respondents returnable on February 1, 2023.”
The matter will now be heard next on February 8, 2024.
A green activist has filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to develop a 120-acre theme park at the Mahalaxmi Race Course.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata said they would hear the matter of ad-interim reliefs on Wednesday after the court was assured no major decisions would be taken till then.
The petition is filed by city resident Satyen Kapadia who has termed the government's decision as "arbitrary, capricious, patently illegal" and an “environmental disaster”.
The petition states that the Mahalaxmi Race Course is one of the few remaining large open public spaces in the city and developing a theme park over it would deprive citizens of this space.