Nominal Index

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422 to 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

1. Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

2. The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

3. Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

4. Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

5. Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

6. Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

7. Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428

8. Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

9. 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430

10. Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431

11. H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432

12. Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 433

13. Maharashtra State Wrestling Association v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 434

14. Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 435

15. Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

16. Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

17. Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

18. Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

19. Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

20. Mayuri Krishna Jabare v. General Manager, BEST & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

21. Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

22. Bhanudas S/o Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

23. JIK Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Maruti Nashik Mene 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

24. Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

25. Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

26. Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

27. All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

28. Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

29. Euro Pratik Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

30. M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

31. Faizan Wahid Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

32. Vijay S/o Shankarrao Talewar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

33. Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah v. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

34. Julio Ribeiro and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

35. Prasanna Krishnaji Musale v. Mrs. Neelam Prasanna Musale 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

36. M/s. Renaissance Global Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

37. Anjali Vilas Deshpande v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

38. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

39. Aboil alias Yugandhara w/o Tejpal Patil v. Tejpal S/o Premchand Patil 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

40. Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

41. JSW Steel Limited v. Bellary Oxygen Company Private Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

42. Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

43. Monic Sunit Ujjain v. Sanchu M. Menon and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

44. Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

45. M/s. Samiksha Construction Company v. Ambernath Municipal Council and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

Reports

1. Misled By Claimant's Counsel, Bombay High Court Apologises To MACT Assistant Registrar For Making Strong Remarks

Case Title: Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

The Bombay High Court apologised for its strong remarks against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pune and said that the remarks will be expunged from the record after realising that it was misled by a claimant's advocate.

A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Gauri V Godse on September 22 and October 14, 2022, had pulled up the Registrar MACT for failure to remit Rs. 30 lakh compensation to the claimant-son for 2.5 years.

However, on October 19 the bench learned that an application for remittance was made only on October 10, 2022. It therefore commented on the "poor" conduct of the law firm, for the manner in which the case was handled.

2. Child Raised In Orphanage Cannot Be Declared As "Orphan" Under JJ Act If Biological Parents Are Alive: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

The Bombay High Court held that children though brought up in an orphanage cannot be declared as 'orphans' as defined under Section 2(42) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Act, 2015 if their biological parents are alive.

The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala & RN Laddha however asked the Committee under the JJ Act to decide if such children, the petitioners, can be declared as 'abandoned children' under section 2(1) of the Act.

3. Bombay High Court Asks Legal Services Authority To Review Pending Cases Where Lawyers Are Not Appointed Despite Prisoners' Requests

Case Title: Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

The Bombay High Court asked its Legal Services Authority to review pending cases where lawyers have not been appointed despite prisoners' requests so that appeals can be filed expeditiously.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was dealing with an interim application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against applicant's conviction. The Legal Services Authority had kept his request for appointment of advocate pending for more than two years.

4. Maharashtra Minor Mineral Rules | Prior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Quarry Permits For Temporary Extraction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

The Bombay High Court held that quarry permits for extraction and removal of minor minerals from a specified area for a temporary period do not require prior submission of environmental clearance certificate under Rule 59 of Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (2013 Rules).

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside directions by the State Government which required prior submission of environment clearance certificate for grant of quarry permits despite there being no such requirement in the 2013 Rules. The court stated that the 2013 rules will prevail over executive instructions of the government.

5. Arbitration, Invoked Without Authority, The Defect Can't Be Ratified With Fresh Board Resolution: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

The Bombay High Court ruled that the issue whether the arbitration was invoked and the Statement of Claim was filed, by a person duly authorized by the claimant, goes to the root of the matter, with respect to which the arbitral tribunal may make a final arbitral award. Thus, the Court held that the order passed by the arbitral tribunal, granting a choice to the claimant to prove the board resolution passed by it, appointing its authorized representative, or to pass a fresh board resolution, is an interim award which is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice C.V. Bhadang held that once the arbitral tribunal had ruled that the specified person had no authority to invoke arbitration and depose on behalf of the claimant, in view of the fact that the alleged board resolution was not proved by it as valid, the tribunal could not have ruled that the said defect was rectifiable. The Court added that ratification can only be of an act which is otherwise valid.

6. Uttar Pradesh Migrant Not Entitled To Benefits Meant For OBC Candidates In Maharashtra: High Court

Case Title: Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a migrant from Uttar Pradesh is not entitled to any benefits meant for OBC candidates in Maharashtra, and upheld the invalidation of a Nationalist Congress Party candidate for BMC Naziya Ansari's caste certificate.

"She being a migrant after the deemed date was not entitled to contest elections in Maharashtra," the bench said. The court also found that Ansari had produced "fabricated documents" and was guilty of defrauding the court, and therefore imposed cost of Rs. 50,000.

7. Biker Not Liable For Contributory Negligence If Parking Lights Of Stationary Vehicle Against Which He Dashed At Night Were Off: Bombay HC

Case Title: Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428

The Bombay High Court Aurangabad bench held that a motorcycle rider cannot be held even partially responsible for ramming into a stationary tempo under the Motor Vehicle's Act if the offending vehicle's parking lights were off.

Justice SG Dige observed, "When there is specific rule in respect of taking precautions by stationary vehicle, if such precautions are not taken by the driver/owner of stationary vehicle then liability cannot be shifted on motorcycle rider."

8. Wife Who Filed Three Criminal Cases Against Husband Fully Aware Of Legal Procedure, Cannot Claim Ignorance: Bombay HC Upholds Divorce

Case Title: Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

The Bombay High Court refused to set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court owing to the wife's non-appearance observing that a woman who filed three criminal cases against her husband would be fully aware of the legal procedure.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh rejected the wife's claim that she was illiterate and a victim of wrong legal advice, moreover that it was the court's duty to secure her presence.

"The Appellant had knowledge of the legal procedure, having filed three criminal cases," the bench observed.

9. Bombay HC Shocked Over Registration Of FIR Against 9-Yr-Old For Accidentally Hitting Lady With Bicycle, Orders Compensation

Case Title: 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered by police against a 9-year-old child for accidentally hitting a lady while riding a bicycle despite the exception provided in section 83 of the IPC.

"The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence", the bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S. M. Modak stated in its order.

"Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e., of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9-year-old boy", the court said and awarded cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.

10. Suppression Of Material Facts Ground To Refuse Temporary Injunction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431

The Bombay High Court recently held that a temporary injunction can be granted only if the applicant approaches the court without any suppression of material facts and reiterated that such an injunction can be granted only if a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to the person seeking the injunction is established.

Justice Sandeep Kumar C. More of the Aurangabad bench set aside a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit land in a property dispute as the respondents had suppressed prior litigation related to the dispute from the court.

The court referred to various judgements in which Supreme Court observed that discretion of the lower court should not be interfered with in an appeal. The court stated, "all these observations will be applicable to the party who has come with clean hands before the court. It is a principle of law that who seeks equity, must do the same."

11. [NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity Contraband: Bombay High Court

Case Title: H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432

The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the combined weight of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) drug and the blotting paper carrying it is necessary to ascertain if the seized drug is of a small or commercial quantity and impose punishment under the NDPS Act accordingly.

The court passed the order on a reference by a single judge on whether LSD alone or the combined weight of LSD and blotting paper would be used to determine the weight the seized drug.

A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Bharat Deshpande held that the blotter paper facilitates LSD's consumption as a whole. Therefore, it is as a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act.

12. Bombay High Court Says Chanda Kochhar's Retrospective Termination By ICICI Bank 'Prima Facie Valid'

Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 433

The Bombay High Court held that former Chief Executive of the ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar's retrospective termination from the bank in 2019 is a prima facie "valid termination", while dismissing her interim application in her suit against the bank.

A single bench of Justice R. I. Chagla observed that Kochhar had not come to court with "clean hands."

In the order, the court also restrained Kochhar from dealing with ICICI's 6,90,000 shares which she had acquired through stock options between October 4 and December 11, 2018 and directed her to disclose all her transactions while dealing with the stocks on an affidavit within six weeks.

13. Dissolution Of Maharashtra Wrestling Association Not In 'Sporting Spirit': High Court Sets Aside WFI's Decision

Case Title: Maharashtra State Wrestling Association v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 434

The Bombay High Court set aside the decision of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to dissolve the elected executive committee of Maharashtra State Wrestling Association (MSWA), led by NCP chief Sharad Pawar observing that it was "unreasonable, illegal and not in sporting spirit".

"Decision of the Executive Committee of WFI was, not only in breach of principles of natural justice, but behind their back…the procedural fairness has been given complete go-by, before taking the impugned decision", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde stated in his order.

The court noted that under Article V(g) of the WFI Constitution, General Council alone has the power to appoint an ad-hoc committee. "Decision to appoint the Ad-Hoc Committee and further empowering the Ad-Hoc Committee to look after the day-to-day affairs and to hold the election of the petitioner-Association was equally illegal and bad in law", the court held.

14. Time Limit To Refer Statement Of Case By CESTAT To High Court, Under Section 130A (4) Of The Customs Act, Is Directory: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 435

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the time limit within which the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is required to refer the statement of the case to the High Court, as prescribed in Section 130A (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only directory and not imperative in nature.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor held that the CESTAT is a judicial body, over whose actions the revenue authorities have no control. It added that if the time limit within which the CESTAT is required to make a reference, as provided in Section 130A (4), is construed as mandatory, it might deprive the revenue authorities of their right to have a question of law considered by the High Court.

15. Bombay HC Continues Interim Relief Granted To Mumbai's 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Establishment In Vijaywada

Case Title: Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

The Bombay High Court refused to vacate the ex-parte interim relief granted to Haji Ali Juice Centre in Mumbai in a trade mark infringement suit against Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices, an establishment in Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh.

Justice Manish Pitale stated that the defendants didn't show that there was any falsehood and suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff in not disclosing a prior litigation with the defendants, as the plaintiff could not presume that there was any link between the Vijaywada establishment and the defendants.

16. ''Politically Motivated, Publicity Seeking Litigations': Bombay HC Dismisses Three PILs Against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut & NCP Functionary

Case Title: Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

The Bombay High Court dismissed three public interest litigations seeking an investigation against Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray and Sanjay Raut as well as Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) functionary after noting the pleas were ''politically motivated and publicity seeking litigations''.

A division bench of Justices S V Gangarpurwala and S G Dige dismissed three PILs stating, "We do not find any details in the allegations…no documents. We cannot direct a roving and fishing inquiry".

17. Bombay High Court Asks State's Revenue Dept To Consider Providing E-Stamp Facilities, Licence For New Vendors

Case Title: Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

The Bombay High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to Maharashtra Revenue Department to take an appropriate decision on a representation by a practicing advocate seeking allotment of new authorized stamp vendor licenses in Mumbai (especially in Fort area) for the convenience of the public or starting e-stamp facilities like NCR Delhi and other States.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar did not further examine the matter stating that a policy decision has to be taken by the government. "Whether or not e-stamp facility is to be introduced and/or whether the number of stamp vendors is to be increased are within the exclusive domain of the executive", the court held. The court added that it could not be proper for the court to make any mandatory direction in this case since the petitioner has not specifically denied the State's reply to the PIL.

18. Bombay High Court Restrains Saregama From Infringing Shemaroo's Copyright In 'Disco Dancer' Movie, Allows London Show To Go On

Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Saregama India Limited from infringing Shemaroo Entertainment Limited's copyright in the Mithun Chakraborty starrer Disco Dancer.

Justice Manish Pitale observed that prima facie the intellectual property rights and other theatrical rights of the film were assigned to Shemaroo by producer B Subhash in 2011, prior to a 2019 agreement cited by Shemaroo.

"Prima facie, it appears that when defendant No.3 (B Subhash) had already assigned all rights, including intellectual property rights, theatrical rights and other such rights pertaining to the said film in favour of the plaintiff, any such subsequent agreements executed by defendant No.3, claiming to assign adaptation rights or the rights to stage musicals would pale into insignificance."

19. Bombay High Court Allows Parole Without Police Escort To Arun Gawli For Attending Son's Wedding

Case Title: Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently allowed parole without police escort to gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli for attending his son's marriage. The court also decreased the amount of cash security and surety imposed on him.

The division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that the authority has not given any reason for imposing the condition of police escort and large amount of cash security and surety while granting parole.

20. Absence of RT-PCR Report At Peak of Pandemic No Ground To Refuse COVID Death Compensation: Bombay HC Directs BEST To Pay 50L To Dead Conductor's Kin

Case Title: Mayuri Krishna Jabare v. General Manager, BEST & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

Observing that the mere absence of an "RT-PCR report or adequate medical documentation" couldn't be a ground to refuse relief to a frontline covid worker's kin, the Bombay High Court directed Rs. 50 lakh compensation and compassionate appointment to the kin of a deceased BEST Bus conductor who died at the peak of the first covid wave in August 2020.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar said it would be "inhuman" to decline relief to the conductor who gave 22 years of his life to best and died while "answering the call of duty."

21. M-seal vs R-seal: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Pidilite In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Riya Chemy from using the mark 'R-Seal' or any other mark similar to Pidilite Industries Limited 's 'M-Seal' mark, in a trademark and copyright infringement suit.

Justice R. I. Chagla held that prima facie, the defendant secured the registration of the mark 'R-Seal' fraudulently by concealing the existence of the plaintiff's prior registered marks from the Registrar of Trade Marks.

22. Civil Court Order To Prevail Over Findings Recorded By Authorities Under Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bhanudas S/o Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

The Bombay High Court held that the judgement of the Civil Court in a prior suit will prevail over an order passed under Section 18(2) of the Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 for the same cause of action.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside the order passed by the District Registrar (Money Lending) and appellate authority which had declared a transaction between the parties to be a mortgage despite the Civil Court's prior declaration that it was an absolute sale.

23. 'Frivolous Petition': Bombay HC Imposes ₹50K Cost On JIK Industries For Delaying Adjudication In Watchman's 15-Yr-Old Compensation Claim

Case Title: JIK Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Maruti Nashik Mene

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

The Bombay High Court imposed Rs 50,000 costs on home products-manufacturer JIK Industries for opposing the very adjudication of a watchman's compensation claim - 18 years after he was burnt in a factory fire.

Justice MS Karnik dismissed the employer's "frivolous petition" that challenged the Labour Court's decision to condone the watchman's delay of two years and restored his 2007 claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court termed the objection 'hyper technical' and stated that the employer should have contested the claim on merits instead of challenging every interlocutory order.

24. Fictitious Claims Of Freedom Fighter's Pension Should Be Dealt With Sternly: Bombay HC While Dismissing 80 Yrs Old Widow's Plea

Case Title: Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

The Bombay High Court observing that fictitious freedom fighter claims must be dealt with sternly while dismissing a writ petition filed by a woman against rejection of her deceased husband's claim despite the husband not having challenged the same during his lifetime.

The court noted that petitioner's husband had filed his own affidavits with his applications but did not support his application with the affidavit of freedom fighters who suffered incarceration for a period of two years.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pedneker of the Nagpur bench dismissed the plea stating that petitioner did not produce any material to show that her husband was a freedom fighter.

25. 'Temple From Which Ganja Was Recovered Was Not In His Exclusive Possession': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Priest In NDPS Case

Case Title: Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a priest who is accused of growing cannabis plants in the temple premises in Pune. Justice Sandeep Shinde while dealing with the bail application observed that prima facie, the temple was not in exclusive possession of the priest.

"Above all the charge-sheet, prima-facie, does not suggest that temple from which ganja was recovered, was in his exclusive possession of the applicant. To put it differently, temple premises being accessible to the public at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in exclusive possession and control of the applicant", the court said in its order.

26. 'Prima Facie Can't Say Anand Teltumbde Was Involved In Any Terrorist Activity Under UAPA': Bombay High Court In Bail Order

Case Title: Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

The Bombay High Court said prima facie "it cannot be concluded that Teltumbde has indulged in a terrorist act," while granting bail to Anand Teltumbde on merits, in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgaar Parishad Case.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav observed that sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), and 20 (Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were prima facie not made out.

The court noted that prima facie the five letters cited against Anand Teltumbde, allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson's laptop would fall under the "realm of presumption" which would need "further corroboration."

Court observed that NIA's case that the CPI(Maoist) using the Elgar Parishad to further a 'larger conspiracy,' the material on record was not adequate to charge him to the sections.

27. State Govt's Power To Refer To Labour Court, any Disputes Regarding Newspaper Employee's Dues Cannot Be Delegated: Bombay High Court

Case Title: All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

The Bombay High Court held that the state government cannot delegate its power to refer a question related to amount due to any newspaper employee to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act).

Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench in a writ petition filed by law journal All India Reporter struck down a notification of the state government delegating the power to make reference to the Labour Court to the Additional Commissioner of Labour.

28. Bombay High Court Stays Centre's Notification Limiting Jurisdiction Of Cases Above Rs 100 Crores To 3 DRTs

Case Title: Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court stayed a notification issued by the central government on October 04, 2022, revising jurisdiction of various Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and giving jurisdiction for adjudicating cases valued over Rs. 100 crores to three DRTs located at Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge And Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh issued notice to the central government and stayed the notification in a writ petition challenging its constitutionality.

"Prima facie, it appears from the record that, the Debts Recovery Tribunals established at various locations, would now be divested of their jurisdiction, on the ground of pecuniary limitation created by a Notification, without any amendment to the RDB Act. This appears to be unsustainable", the court stated.

29. Assessee Can't forgo the deemed excise credit: Bombay High Court Orders Tran 1 Or Tran 2 to be filed on GST portal

Case Title: Euro Pratik Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

The Bombay High Court held that it will be wholly unfair if the assessee ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit, particularly when under Section 29(3) his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that the application, subject to paying all necessary fees and filing requisite documents, shall be considered and registration shall be restored by not later than November 22, 2022. After the restoration of registration, the nodal officer shall forward the restoration order to GSTN. The GSTN shall, on receipt of the order, ensure that the portal is open in such a way that the petitioner will be able to apply for migration under TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 before November 30, 2022.

The court ordered that if online restoration is not possible, the order will be passed manually. The Nodal Officer shall forward all those documents to GSTN, and GSTN shall consider the order as if it were filed online or properly filed and give effect to that in its portal.

30. Notification Granting IGST Exemption To Capital Goods Imported Under EPCG scheme Is Clarificatory, Curative: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

The Bombay High Court held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) is clarifying and curative.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.

The court noted that the basic structure of GST was not to grant exemptions, but the GST Council decided to grant exemption from IGST, Cess, etc. under Section 6 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, to imports of goods for exporters availing the scheme of advance authorisation/export promotion capital goods or 100% export-oriented units up to March 31, 2018 and to continue the existing monitoring scheme for exports.

31. Though Minor, She Understood Consequences Of Her Act & Voluntarily Accompanied Him: Bombay High Court While Granting Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Faizan Wahid Baig v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl observing that the two were in a relationship and the girl, though minor, understood the consequences of her act. The girl was 15 years and 4 months old while the accused was about 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident.

"n a case like this, where she voluntarily joined the company of the applicant, and she had categorically admitted that she was in love with the applicant, whether that she consented for the sexual intercourse or not, is the matter of evidence," Justice Bharati Dangre stated in her order.

32. Remove Collars Of Unregistered Stray Dogs: Bombay High Court Directs Nagpur Civic Body, Seeks Compliance Report (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Vijay S/o Shankarrao Talewar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

The Bombay High Court directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to check whether any stray dogs in the city have been collared without proper registration and to remove any such unauthorised collars.

A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench gave this direction in a PIL filed by activist Vijay Talewar through advocate Firdos Mirza seeking action with regard to the presence of stray dogs in Nagpur city.

The court also asked all the intervenors in the case to submit suggestions regarding the manner "in which the nuisance of stray dogs must be controlled."

The court directed the NMC to consider the guidelines prescribed in the revised module for stray dogs management, rabies eradication, reducing man-dog conflict, devised by the Animal Welfare Board of India and consult the Board for the purpose of "elimination" of "nuisance" of stray dogs and taking care of welfare of the dogs.

33. Prima Facie Tenancy Not Forged: Bombay High Court Refuses To Appoint Court Receiver For Prime Mumbai Property In Dispute With Kuwaiti Royalty

Case Title: Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah v. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

The Bombay High Court reiterated that unlike criminal proceedings, in civil proceedings, a court can rely on statements given to the police under section 162 of CrPC. Therefore, it relied on witness statements made before CID in a criminal investigation to decide a property dispute involving the royal family of Kuwait.

Justice BP Colabawala, while dealing with a notice of motion in the civil suit, extended the interim relief granted to the eldest daughter of late Sheikh Saad, former Emir of Kuwait and restrained the defendants from creating any third-party rights in the disputed premises in a building owned by the royal family.

The court however, refused to appoint a court receiver and grant mesne profits to the petitioner holding that the petitioner couldn't make out a prima facie case that the defendants forged and fabricated the tenancy agreements with respect to the suit premises.

34. What Steps Were Taken To Prevent Maharashtra Bandh Over Lakhimpur Kheri Incident In 2021: Bombay High Court To Police

Case Title: Julio Ribeiro and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

The Bombay High Court asked Maharashtra Police to inform it about the measures that were taken to avert the bandh, which had been called by the then ruling Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in October 2021 to protest against the death of farmers in Uttar Pradesh's Lakhimpur Kheri. The state-wide strike was supported by NCP's alliance partners Shiv Sena and Congress.

The court admitted the PIL filed by four senior citizens, including former Mumbai CP Julio Ribeiro last year seeking penalty on the political parties and compensation for those affected.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja sought to know if the police had complied with directions passed in a 2004 judgement in DG Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra delivered by Justice AP Shah.

35. Bombay High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Artist Who Falsely Accused Wife Of Being HIV Positive

Case Title: Prasanna Krishnaji Musale v. Mrs. Neelam Prasanna Musale

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

Observing that a man couldn't claim irretrievable breakdown of his marriage after falsely accusing his wife being an "HIV patient" and refusing to co-habit with her, the Bombay High Court refused to grant the man divorce.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an artist's appeal from 2011 against a Family Court order refusing divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) (i-b) and (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"Petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. In spite of the report… which shows the test result as HIV DNA "not detected", the Petitioner has refused to co-habit with the Respondent and defamed the Respondent (wife) in the society by informing relatives and friends that the Respondent (wife) has tested positive."

36. Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty

Case Title: M/s. Renaissance Global Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (SEZ Rules).

In a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of Customs Duty along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, the bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor were dealing with the issue as to whether the petitioners were permitted to import new/unused jewellery for remaking after melting.

37. [MV Act] 'Form 16' Issued By Employer Reliable Piece Of Evidence To Determine Real Income Of Deceased For Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anjali Vilas Deshpande v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

The Bombay High Court held that Form 16 issued by an employer for income tax purposes, showing a higher remuneration than a salary slip, is a reliable piece of evidence for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,.

"We find that Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine the real income of the deceased. The reason is that Form 16 has been signed and generated by the employer of the deceased," a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse observed.

38. Bombay High Court Allows Nuvoco Vistas To File GST TRAN-1 For Availing Transitional ISD Credit

Case Title: Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

The Bombay High Court allowed Nuvoco Vistas, to file GST TRAN-1 to avail of the transitional Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of service tax.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that the GST TRAN-1 or revised GST TRAN-1 filed by the units or offices will be based on the manual ISD invoices to be issued by the petitioner's ISD, subject to aggregate credit not exceeding the ISD credit available to the petitioner.

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Another v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court had directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September 2022 to 31st October 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit.

39. [S.24 Hindu Marriage Act] Posting Job Offer Letter On Social Media Insufficient Proof Of Wife's Employment: Bombay HC

Case Title: Aboil alias Yugandhara w/o Tejpal Patil v. Tejpal S/o Premchand Patil

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

The Bombay High Court granted interim maintenance to a woman in a matrimonial matter, observing that mere social media post about a job offer does not mean that she was actually employed.

While dealing with a writ petition, Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside family court's order denying maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner-wife. High Court said that the respondent-husband didn't give actual proof that his wife was employed.

The court further reiterated that if the wife does not have a job, mere possession of having higher educational qualification cannot be a reason to altogether deny interim maintenance

40. Mere Filing Of FIR Against Restaurant Owner Not Ground To Cancel Its Performance License, Unless Case Results In Conviction: Bombay HC

Case Title: Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Observing that mere registration of a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel performance license of a restaurant unless the case results in a conviction, the Bombay High Court recently set aside the cancellation of performance licence of Geeta Lunch Home, a restaurant in Mumbai.

"It is settled law that until held guilty, a person should be treated as innocent, and therefore, mere registration of crime would not furnish ground to cancel license", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde held.

41. Arbitration Clause In An Agreement Can't Be Invoked For Another Agreement, Operating Independently: Bombay High Court

Case Title: JSW Steel Limited v. Bellary Oxygen Company Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere reference to an Agreement containing an arbitration clause, in a subsequent Agreement, will not bring about a consequence envisaged under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), to the effect that the arbitration agreement would be incorporated into the subsequent Agreement.

The Court added that the reference contemplated under Section 7(5) of the A&C Act, should be such so as to make the arbitration clause part of the contract.

The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed that the parties had categorically confined the applicability of the arbitration agreement only to the Agreement containing the arbitration clause, and that they had consciously not provided for any arbitration agreement in the subsequent Agreement.

42. Should Have Declared Conflict of Interest under Section 38(2) of Mumbai Cricket Association's Constitution: Bombay HC Upholds Former U-19 India Captain's Suspension From Cricket For A Year

Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

The Bombay High Court upheld former Ranji player and former captain of under-19 Indian team Kiran Powar's removal from the Mumbai Cricket Association's Apex Council, and also upheld the bar on him from playing cricket for a year.

The division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha that Powar was appointed to the Apex Council in October 2019. However, he failed to declare that his brother was appointed as a coach for MCA between 2017-18 and that his (brother's) name was under consideration.

The disclosure should've been made under section 38(2) of MCA's constitution, the order states. Under section 38(1)(v) any person who occupies a position of influence must disclose where a friend, relative or close affiliate is in the zone of consideration.

43. Offence U/S138 NI Act Not Attracted If The Cheque Is Given As Security for a Loan From Unlicensed Money Lender: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Monic Sunit Ujjain v. Sanchu M. Menon and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

The Bombay High Court rejected a criminal revision application in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act observing that section 138 cannot be attracted if the cheque is given as security for a loan from a unlicensed money lender.

"In cases of money lending business without license, the provisions under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted", Justice Prakash Naik observed in his order.

44. Land Acquisition: Evidence produced before reference court prior to HC remanding the case back should be considered if no new evidence is produced after remand

Case Title: Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court awarded a farmer additional monetary compensation for his mango trees and well in a land acquisition case. The court also enhanced the overall compensation granted by the reference court.

While hearing the case for the first time, the reference court had considered the location as well as the trees and the well and enhanced the compensation awarded by the acquisition officer. However, after hearing the matter for the second time, it discarded the evidence given the first time around and reduced the compensation. It also did not award compensation for the well and trees.

The court noted that the referral court discarded the evidence laid down before the remand without any reason. The court stated that the reference court should have considered the evidence given by appellant before remand as no new evidence was given by VIDC after the remand.

45. 'Would Be Inappropriate To Accept Challenge Against Use Of E-Vehicles In Present Times Of Advancement': Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Samiksha Construction Company v. Ambernath Municipal Council and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

The Bombay High Court refused to accept a construction company's challenge to a civic body's tender notice mandating that the successful bidder provide hundred e-vehicles for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste. Observing that a shift towards e-Vehicles is discernible in the present times.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja also relied on Section 316 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats, and Industrial Township Act, 1965 and said that if the Administrator does not have the authority to issue fresh tender, by the same logic, the Administration did not have the authority to extend the petitioner's contract.

Other developments

1. Octogenarian Lawyer Approaches Bombay HC Seeking Permission To Translate Devout Gandhian's Autobiography

An 83-year-old lawyer approached the Bombay High Court seeking license to translate and publish the autobiography of devout Gandhian - Madeleine Slade also known as Mira Behn.

Lawyer Anilkumar Karkhanis said he intended to publish the book titled "The Spirit's Pilgrimage" in Marathi, not for any commercial gain but in public interest. He has approached the court under section 32 of the Copyright Act 1957 for permission as the original publishers are untraceable.

The bench subsequently ordered a notice to be issue in the Copyright Journal as well as in two newspapers. The matter will now be listed for further consideration on November 15, 2022.

2. Bombay High Court Likely To Get Land For New Building At Bandra Soon, All Legal Hurdles Cleared: Chief Minister Eknath Shinde

Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on said that all legal issues have been cleared and a decision has been taken for a new building for the Bombay High Court at the Bandra Kurla Complex.

"We have discussed the land allotment issue at BKC, which I think is a requirement as well. Therefore, we have taken a decision based on whatever was sought. That's all that I can say on this occasion," said Shinde.

Shinde was speaking at an event at the Maharashtra Raj Bhavan for felicitation of Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit by Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari.

3. Protracted Acquisition Proceedings By Maharashtra Govt To Blame For Delay In Bullet Train Project: Godrej & Boyce To Bombay High Court

The "inordinate delay" in land acquisition for the Bullet Train project is the Maharashtra State's own doing, the Godrej & Boyce said in a rejoinder before the Bombay High Court refuting allegations of delaying the project.

Godrej and the government have been at loggerheads over acquisition of the company-owned land in suburban Vikhroli for the bullet train project since 2019. Of the total 508.17 kilometres of rail track between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, 21 km is planned to be underground. One of the entry points to the underground tunnel falls on the land at Vikhroli (owned by Godrej).

According to Godrej, the authorities have failed to fulfil the mandatory statutory requirements of the Fair Compensation Act. Godrej has challenged the constitutional validity of a proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act which permits state to grant extensions for issuance of the award.

The rejoinder called the state's conduct in the acquisition as "dishonest and malafide." It highlighted that the notifications for the extension, since January 2021, had made no reference to any action necessitating it, or hurdles caused by Godrej.

4. Bombay HC Allows Time For ED To Amend Appeal Against Sanjay Raut's Bail & Challenge Special Court's "Uncalled For" Remarks Against It

Case Title: Union of India v. Sanjay Rajaram Raut and Anr.

The Bombay High Court on Friday adjourned to November 25, 2.30pm the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the bail granted to MP Sanjay Raut from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)'s political party, in the Patra Chawl money laundering case.

Justice Bharati Dangre adjourned the matter after ASG Anil Singh for ED sought time to amend the plea and take certain additional grounds based on the Special PMLA Court's scathing observations against the agency.

Justice Dangre asked the ED to serve an amended copy of the appeal by 14 November and for the accused to respond within the next seven days.

5. Ex-BMC Corporator Moves Bombay High Court Against Ordinance Reducing Number Of Wards

Case Title: Raju Pednekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A former Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) corporator has approached the Bombay High Court challenging an ordinance dated August 8, 2022 that reversed Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government's decision to increase the number of BMC wards and reduced the number of wards back from 236 to 227.

The petition prays for declaration under article 226 of the Constitution that the Maharashtra Ordinance no. VII of 2022 (impugned ordinance) is ultra-vires the Constitution of India and hence null and void.

The petitioner has also sought a stay on the ordinance during pendency of the case with clarification that the SEC is required to proceed and conduct elections to the BMC on the basis of delimitation carried out by it in accordance with the Supreme Court orders.

6. Mumbai Suburban Collector's Conduct Borders On Contempt: Bombay High Court On Delay In Crematorium Reconstruction

Case Title: Chetan Kodarlal Vyas v. Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up Mumbai Suburban District Collector Nidhi Chaudhari for not complying with its direction to reconstruct a decades-old crematorium on Erangal Beach in Mumbai.

"The conduct of the Collector is such that the same borders on contempt", the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar stated in its order.

On 29 September, the court in its judgement in a PIL had directed the Collector to reconstruct the crematorium which was earlier demolished for alleged Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violations without hearing the local fisherfolk who built it. The court was inclined to issue notice of contempt to the Collector but refrained because Patki said that there was no intention on the part of the Collector to disobey any judicial order.

7. Multifarious Proceedings Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay HC To Lt Col Prasad Purohit In Malegaon Blast Case

Case Title: Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court on Monday asked Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, accused in the Malegaon Blasts case, to decide whether he wants to pursue the pending appeal against rejection of his discharge application or the writ petition against special court's order taking cognizance of ATS chargesheet filed against him in 2009.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind Jadhav said that multifarious proceedings for the same cause of action cannot be permitted. The petitioner has three different pending cases in the High Court against the aforementioned special court's order

8. Bombay High Court Asks PIL Petitioner To Show How ₹200 VIP Entry Fees At Nashik's Trimbakeshwar Temple Is Unlawful (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Lalita Sandeep Shinde v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.

In a PIL against VIP entry fees of Rs. 200 charged by the Trimbakeshwar Temple Trust for special privileges of darshan, the Bombay High Court on Monday asked the petitioner to point out the provisions of law under which the VIP entry fees is illegal.

The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. G. Dige posted the matter for November 30, 2022 stating, "if a person asks for some preference, then extra can be charged. The arrangement is made for those persons……You show a provision which says it is not allowed."

9. Bombay HC Seeks State's Response On PIL Seeking Mandatory Charging Infrastructure For Electric Vehicles in Housing Societies

Case Title: Amit Dholakia & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court issued notice in a PIL seeking directions to the State and Registrar of Cooperative Societies for issuance of guidelines for installation of electric vehicle charging stations within cooperative housing societies.

A division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice S. G. Dige posted the matter for further hearing on January 06, 2023.

According to the petition, despite state government's Maharashtra Electric Vehicle Policy, 2001 (MEV Policy) promoting the adoption and manufacture of electric vehicles in Maharashtra, the Development Control And Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 do not contain any provision for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the petition submits.

"There is a regulatory and legislative vacuum governing the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in existing co-operative housing societies," the petition contends.

The petition prays that the court frame appropriate guidelines for the provision of charging infrastructure in cooperative housing societies till the State government or the registrar under section 14 or section 79A of the MCS Act respectively take appropriate action to fill this vacuum. The petition has also sought directions to the state government to implement the MEV Policy and make appropriate amendments to the DCPR, 2034.

10. Bombay HC Directs Re-Testing Of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, Allows Company To Resume Manufacture But No Sale Or Distribution For Now

Case Title: Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court allowed Johnson and Johnson Pvt Ltd to re-start manufacturing of its baby powder at their Mulund unit and also directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to re-test four samples, at two government and one private laboratory.

The court directed FDA to collect the samples for testing in front of an authorised person from the company within three days and send them for testing to labs within the next three days. The labs would have to complete testing within seven days thereafter.

However, the company has undertaken not to sell or distribute the product.

A division bench of Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice S G Dige passed the interim order in the company's petition challenging the cancellation of its licence by FDA for manufacturing of baby powder at its Mulund factory.

11. NHAI Not Taking NH-66 Potholes Issue Seriously: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Owais Anwar Pechkar v. Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court pulled up National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for not taking seriously the issue of bad condition of a section of the National Highway 66.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja directed NHAI to fill all potholes on the Panvel to Indapur stretch of the Mumbai-Goa part of NH66 and file a compliance affidavit by December 23, 2022.

12. Bombay HC CJ Dipankar Datta Recuses From Hearing PIL For CBI/ ED Probe Into Ex-Maha CM Uddhav Thackeray's Wealth

Case Title: Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta recused from hearing a PIL seeking a CBI and ED investigation into the alleged "disproportionate" wealth of Maharashtra's ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray, his wife and two sons.

Not before the bench of which Chief Justice Dipankar Datta is a member, the CJ said.

13. 'Open Manholes Are Death Traps': Bombay High Court On 68-year-Old's Recent Death At Virar

Case Title: Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashta and Ors.

The Bombay High Court said that all open manholes adjoining the Eastern Express Highway must be covered by December 1, while calling them a "death trap" after a 68-year-old woman fell into one such manhole and lost her life.

The petitioner pointed out that on the EEH, especially from Mulund to Ghatkopar, there are innumerable open manholes on the road connecting the service road and main highway.

The court also warned the BMC against seeking any extensions to comply with an earlier order regarding repairing of the 20 worst pothole ridden roads. The BMC had earlier given the court a timeline regarding concretization of Mumbai roads.

14. Bombay High Court Questions Maharashtra Govt's Reservation For Orphans In Public Employment

Case Title: Amruta Karwande and Anr. v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court questioned a Maharashtra government resolution which provides reservation for orphan children in employment.

"As far as reservation in educational institutions is concerned, okay. But how can a child be granted reservation in employment?" Chief Justice Dipankar Datta asked.

The division bench of Justice Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a PIL challenging the GR dated August 23, 2021 which provides reservation to orphan children in education and employment.

However, the court took exception to the provision of reservation in employment for orphans and pointed out that the GR is specifically for 'orphan children'. "How can children under 18 years of age be employed?" the court asked.

15. Not Practical To Appoint Transgenders, Need To Frame Policy First: State Moves Bombay HC Against MAT Order On Constable Recruitment In Police Dept

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Arya Vijay Pujari

The Maharashtra Government has approached the Bombay High Court against directions to the state to create the third option of 'other gender,' after male and female in application forms of all recruitments of the Home Department. The state has called it an "overreach of jurisdiction" and an "interference in the domain of policy making."

The petition pertains to recruitment of police constables, drivers and State Reserve Police Force.

16. Maha Govt Too Lazy To Fulfil Duties, 40% Vacancy at MACT Mumbai, No Registrar Since 2019 – Bar Association Moves Bombay HC

Case Title: Bar Association of MACT Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra

Bar Association of MACT Mumbai has approached the Bombay High Court to fill up 40% staff and adjudicating officer vacancy at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai.

According to the petition, MACT Mumbai has eight courtrooms and 124 sanctioned posts. However, only 6 courtrooms have judges and the other two courtrooms have been vacant since 2019. Only 77 positions are filled out of 124. MACT, Mumbai has had over 40% of its posts vacant for the last several years, the petition states.

17. Bombay High Court Questions ASI On Steps Taken To Prevent Paid 'VIP Darshan' At Trimbakeshwar Temple

Case Title: Lalita Sandeep Shinde v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court asked Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to inform it about the steps taken by it to implement its own instructions against charging of Rs 200 entry fees for VIP darshan by Trimbakeshwar Temple Trust.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja directed the ASI to file its reply while posting the matter to January 16, 2022 for further hearing. It also issued notice to the respondents including the Trust.