Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: July 2024

ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320

Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321

Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 324

Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

Himalay Manohar Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 326

Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

Sunil s/o Late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

Dr. Sharadchandra s/o Ganpatrao Wankhede v. Raosaheb S/o. Dadarao Danve and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

Aradhya Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337

Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338

CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

Saraswati Santosh Rathod v. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 340

Zakaulla Khazi vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 341

Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342

ACIT Versus Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 343

Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

Cong Ling v. FRRO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345

Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai , 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 346

Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 347

Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

A vs P, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349

Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 350

M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 351

Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352

Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354

Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 356

M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 357

Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 358

Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359

Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 360

M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 361

Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 362

Venus Jewel Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 363

Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain, 024 LiveLaw (Bom) 364

Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 365

Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 366

Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 367

M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368

Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

Kumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

Nirav Raval vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

PCIT Versus G.K. Developers, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

Ajay Melwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

KC Bokadia vs CBFC, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The State of Maharashtra & ors. vs. Mr. Baban Yeshwant Ghuge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

Pramod Shendre vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

Sandip Talande vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

Hardik Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

Judgments/Final orders:

"Members Of LGBTQ+ Community Vulnerable Within Jail": Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Trafficking Child

Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man belonging to the LGBTQ+ community booked for trafficking a one year and seven months old child observing that members of the community are vulnerable within prison.

Justice Manish Pitale allowed his bail application observing –“This Court is of the opinion that a person belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, who is also HIV positive, can be said to be a person belonging to a category of persons, who are indeed vulnerable, particularly within the four corners of a jail.”

Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008

Case Title: Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321

No prudent person will ever drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, said the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court while denying anticipatory bail to a female Human Resource (HR) professional accused of mowing down two young men while driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted from the material on record, that the female professional had consumed "rum and vodka" from two different restaurants in the night of February 25, and within 5 minutes, covered a total of 3.8 kilometers distance, indicating that she was rashly driving the vehicle.

"A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the applicant has driven the car, which appears from the CCTV Footage, caused death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed. The person who sat on steering wheel after consumption of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner can be attributed knowledge," the judge said.

Mere Filing Of FIR, Ongoing Probe Against Applicant Without Court's Cognizance Not Valid Grounds To Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322

The Bombay High Court observed that merely filing of an FIR or cases under investigation against a person is not a valid ground for refusal of passport renewal when no cognizance has been taken by a court. A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla noted that merely filing an FIR or having cases under investigation does not constitute “pending” criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.

“When we look at the Office Memorandum dated 10th October 2019, it clearly stipulates that merely filing of a FIR and cases under investigation do not come within the purview of the Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967. For a criminal proceeding to be considered as “pending”, it is only when a case is registered before any Court of law and the Court has taken cognizance of the same. This Office Memorandum is certainly binding on the Passport Authorities”, the court observed.

Maratha Reservation Challenge Case: Bombay High Court Impleads Backward Commission

Case Title: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

The Bombay High Court issued notice to the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) headed by former judge Justice (retd.) Sunil Shukre, on whose recommendation the Maharashtra government decided to grant 10 per cent reservation to the Maratha Community in public service and education through the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) Act. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay made the MSBCC a respondent to the bunch of petitions challenging the SEBC Act which grants reservation to the Marathas.

"We allow impleadment of the Commission. We also issue notice to the Commission, made returnable on July 10," the bench also comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla said in their order.

Bombay HC Sets Aside Stay On 'Exceptional' Transfer Of Indian Express Employee, Says Prior Dispute With Employer No Reason To Presume Malafides

Case Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 324

The Bombay High Court observed that merely a transfer of an employee being exceptional and there being previous litigation between employer and employee is not a ground for the Industrial Court to stay the transfer.

Justice Sandeep Marne allowed a writ petition filed by Indian Express (P) Ltd. seeking to set aside Industrial Court's order of interim stay on the transfer and promotion of an employee observing – “Mere filing of earlier litigation is not a reason to infer existence of mala fides for interdicting the order of the transfer…It was not necessary for Petitioners to demonstrate past precedent for justifying the Respondent's transfer. Merely because the transfer is found to be exceptional, the same was not ground for learned Member to stay the same.”

Consensual Relationship Not License To Exploit Partner Sexually, Physically Or Financially: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

Even if there is a consensual relationship between a man and a woman, it does not give one a licence to exploit the partner, the Bombay High Court said while denying bail to a man booked for outraging modesty, abduction, extortion, rape and unnatural sex.

Single-judge Justice NJ Jamadar noted from the statements of various witnesses that indicated how the applicant, who had an extra-marital affair with the victim, ill-treated the victim.

"The fact that the applicant has given threat to the informant while in custody and even made an attempt to escape from the custody cannot be lost sight of. Cumulatively it appears that the applicant had sexually, physically and financially exploited the first informant. Consensual relationship, even if the submission on behalf of the applicant is taken at par, does not give a license to exploit the partner, much less in the manner in which the material on record, in the instant case, indicates," Justice Jamadar said in the order.

Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Contractor Whose License Was Cancelled After He Barged Into Zilla Parishad Office Without Authorization

Case Title: Himalay Manohar Patil v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 326

The Bombay High Court granted relief to a contractor whose licence was terminated by the Palghar Zilla Parishad after he barged into the Zilla Parishad hall without authorization, where a meeting was going on.

A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata quashed the termination of his license observing that the action of the Zilla Parishad failed the Wednesbury test of reasonableness.

“This is a case where relevant considerations like the petitioner's consistent satisfactory performance as a licensed contractor for several years are ignored. Instead, irrelevant considerations, having no nexus with the discharge of contractual obligations, are the foundation. Even assuming that the Petitioner, on one solitary occasion, entered the meeting hall, this could hardly be the ground to terminate the Petitioner's license.”

Bombay High Court Extends Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal's Temporary Bail In Rs 538 Crores Money Laundering Case By Four Weeks

Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

The Bombay High Court extended by four weeks the temporary bail granted to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in a money laundering case arising out of alleged loan default of Rs. 538 Crores given to Jet Airways by Canara Bank.

Justice NJ Jamadar passed the order after Goyal submitted an affidavit stating that his doctor has suggested him to undergo a Laparoscopic Fundoplication surgery, and that he proposed to undergo the same within four weeks, and as soon as his pre-operational surgical fitness is confirmed by his doctors.

"Having perused the medical reports and the situation in which the applicant finds himself, in the backdrop of the physical and psychological ailments, aggravated on account of the demise of his wife, I deem it appropriate to extend the interim bail on medical ground...", the court observed.

Goyal has filed the present application seeking bail on both merits and medical grounds. After extending his interim bail today, the court kept the matter pending for consideration on merits.

Bombay High Court Permits Woman Diagnosed With Cancer To Terminate 25-Weeks Pregnancy, Says She Has 'Reproductive Freedom'

Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

The Bombay High Court allowed a married woman to terminate her over 25-weeks pregnancy so as to allow her to avail treatment against cancer.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale noted that the woman was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, while she was pregnant.

The judges noted that the medical report did not mention any risk to the life of the woman if she is permitted to under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP).

"There is nothing in the report to suggest that the procedure of MTP poses a risk to her health, save and except that she is anaemic requiring transfusion. We have considered the plea of the Petitioner No.1 as stated in the Petition. She states that she is suffering miserably from the ailment and having unbearable pain. She also states that palliative treatment might help her live longer and more comfortably," the judges recorded in their order.

"We are conscious of the right of the Petitioner No.1 to reproductive freedom, her autonomy over her body and her right of choice. In these circumstances, considering the opinion of the Medical Board, doctors of Tata Memorial Centre and the wishes of the Petitioners, we are inclined to permit her to medically terminate her pregnancy, if Petitioner No.1 continues to so desire," the bench said in the order.

Desire To Contest Election Not An Exceptional Circumstance To Stay Conviction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sunil s/o Late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

The Bombay High Court refused to stay the conviction of former Congress MLA Sunil Kedar in a bank scam case of over Rs. 153 Crores observing that just because he desires to contest the upcoming Assembly election that by itself is "not sufficient to stay the conviction mechanically".

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench observed that mere disqualification from contesting election resulting from the conviction is not an exceptional circumstance to stay a conviction.

“Incarcerated For More Than 7 Yrs, Longer Than Maximum Sentence”: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar In 2015 Ponzi Scheme Case

Case Title: Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

The Bombay High Court granted bail to alleged conman Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, booked in a cheating case lodged against him in May 2015 for duping investors in a Ponzi Scheme.

Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale noted that Chandreshkhar had already spent more than seven years in jail, which is nearly more than the maximum sentence he would have to undergo, if convicted.

The judge noted that initially he had been in custody from May 29, 2015 to September 10, 2016, when he was granted bail. However, his bail was subsequently cancelled as he failed to deposit certain amounts as mandated by the Supreme Court while granting him bail. He was later shown to be arrested in another case from April 16, 2017 and was then produced in a special court for his custody in the instant case on October 9, 2017 and since then he continues to be in custody.

"Hence, the second period of incarceration can be taken as the period between October 9, 2017 till date. A rough and ready calculation of the total period of incarceration suffered by the applicant, in the context of the present case, leads to the period of about seven years and ten months. The calculation of the period cannot be disputed," Justice Pitale noted.

Family Of Employee Having More Than Two Children Ineligible For Compassionate Appointment: Bombay High Court Dismisses Claim Of Deceased Cop's Son

Case Title: Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

The Bombay High Court dismissed the claim for compassionate appointment for the son of a deceased policeman on the ground that the employee had more than two children, making his family ineligible for the benefit of compassionate appointment.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil dismissed a writ petition challenging a judgment by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which upheld the rejection of the petitioners' claim for compassionate appointment.

“Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the judgment of the Tribunal, we do not find that there is any case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction”, said the court.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of BJP Leaders Raosaheb Danve, Pritam Munde In 2019 Lok Sabha Polls

Case Title: Dr. Sharadchandra s/o Ganpatrao Wankhede v. Raosaheb S/o. Dadarao Danve and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the election petitions challenging the elections of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders Raosaheb Danve and Pritam Munde in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the prime contention in the two election petitions against Danve and Munde was that the two leaders in connivance with the respective Returning Officers tampered the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and manipulated the results of the elections.

Bombay High Court Allows Student Who Missed HSC Improvement Exam Due To Depression, Internet Gaming Disorder Treatment To Re-Take Exam

Case Title: Aradhya Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

The Bombay High Court permitted a student to appear for the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) improvement exam in July 2024 despite him being precluded from doing so by the relevant regulations.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil granted permission to the petitioner who could not take the exam in July last year as he was undergoing treatment for depression and Internet Gaming Disorder “in the interest of justice”.

“The documents on record including the medical reports from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital indicate that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Internet Gaming Disorder at-least till the end of December, 2023…In the peculiar facts of the case, we find that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to seek improvement in his marks since he was precluded from doing so earlier for medical reasons”, the court held.

[POCSO] Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Man Booked For Allegedly Making Child Record Sexual Activity Between Him And The Child's Mother

Case Title: Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

The Bombay High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 for allegedly making a child record sexual activity between him and the child's mother.

Justice Manish Pitale expressed shock that these allegations were made against the mother of the child as well and decided to grant interim bail to the man so long as he does not contact the child.

“It is indeed shocking that such allegations are made against the mother of the child also. There is nothing to indicate that the mother of the child i.e. co-accused No.1 (victim's mother) has been taken into custody or that efforts are being made to take her into custody…prima facie, it appears that the applicant alongwith co-accused No.1, may have together undertaken the activities that have led to registration of the present FIR. As long as the applicant does not contact the victim child and co-operates with the investigation, this Court is inclined to consider granting interim protection.”

Bombay High Court Quashes Customs Duty Reassessment Against Patanjali Foods On Crude Palm Oil Import

Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

The Bombay High Court has quashed the customs duty reassessment against Patanjali Foods on the import of crude palm oil for home consumption. The Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the rate in force would be the rate that was in force on the date and time of presentation, and in Patanjali's case, since self-assessed bills of entry were already presented before the enhanced rate came into force, the rate payable would be USD 1163 PMT. The said notification enhancing duty applied only to bills of entry presented after 21:24:11 hours on May 13, 2021, and since Patanjali's four ex-bond bills of entry were presented even before 21:00 hours, the enhanced rates would not apply to Patanjali's case.

Breakwater-Wall For Ship-Safety Not 'Plant And Machinery', GAIL Subsidiary Not Eligible For ITC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

The Bombay High Court has held that the breakwater wall or accropode that are essential certainly do not qualify as plant and machinery. The breakwater wall can hardly be called “plant or machinery." Accropodes lose their identity when a breakwater wall is constructed using accropode. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that Explanation to Section 17 also provides that “plant and machinery” should be used for making outward supply of goods or services. The breakwater wall is used for protecting the vessel from tides while unloading the LNG received and not for making outward supplies of goods or services. Therefore, the petitioner does not satisfy the condition provided in the Explanation to Section 17 to be eligible for ITC.

Bombay High Court Expresses Anguish Over Social Stigma Suffered By Women Due To Unwanted Pregnancies Without Any Repercussions For Men

Case title: X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337

In cases of married women becoming pregnant from a man other than her husband, the biological father does not suffer the pain, and social castigation as is suffered by the mother, the Bombay High Court observed on Monday while disallowing a woman to abort her more than 26 weeks pregnancy. The woman in the present case had become pregnant after she indulged in a sexual relationship with her friend while her divorce proceedings against her husband were pending. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale while denying the permission to abort the foetus, as recommended by the medical board, noted that one of the grounds on which the petitioner woman sought to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy was "social stigma."

"We have given our consideration to the grounds on which the Petitioner sought permission. The main reason appears to be fear of social stigma in society coupled with her economical condition. In our view, these grounds are not included in the exceptions where the outer limit of the length of the pregnancy is lifted under the MTP Act," the bench noted.

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UGC Regulations On Distance Learning And Online Programmes

Case title: Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which require universities to meet specific accreditation scores or rankings and to offer programmes in conventional/traditional mode before offering them through distance or online modes. However, the Court also observed that the current accreditation criteria are inappropriate for a Skill University.

The Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed thatthrough the requirement that ODL (Open and Distance Learning) and OL (Online) programme must also be offered in the conventional mode, with at least one batch having passed out, the HEIs (higher Educational Institutions) must demonstrate as a 'proof of concept' in offering a programme. It observed that if at least one batch has graduated from the conventional programme, it would indicate that the HEI is conducting the programme with market acceptability for it, thus ensuring the quality in the ODL and OL modes. The Court therefore held the requirements of the Regulations were a rational and reasonable policy choice.

However, the court observed that until an appropriate set of NAAC parameters is established for a skill university, the outcome of a skill university's review by NAAC would not be appropriate. However, the Court also remarked that since it did not find the requirements of the Regulations to be unconstitutional, it has to issue directions to address such anomaly so that the constitutional validity of the Regulations was not disturbed while ensuring that its effect was not arbitrary and unreasonable to the petitioner.

Section 5 Of Limitation Act Can Be Applied To Condone Delays Under Commercial Courts Act Even In Absence Of Express Provisions: Bombay HC

Case title: CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

The Bombay High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal pertaining to a commercial suit, citing Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act which allows for the condonation of delay, even in absence of any specific provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, stating that since the Commercial Courts Act does not specify a limitation period, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply.

The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre and Abhay J. Mantri stated that the plain reading of Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act indicates that the delay can be condoned even in absence of any express provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of Limitation Act which provided that if the period of limitation is not prescribed in any special or local law, then provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply. Therefore, as per Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, as the principal statute (Commercial Courts Act) does not contain any provisions on limitation period, provisions of Section 4 to 24 of Limitation Act are attracted.

Society In Which Earning Members Are Addicted Will Naturally Suffer Economically And Socially: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saraswati Santosh Rathod v. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 340

A society in which the earning member of the family is addicted, would naturally suffer economically and socially, the Bombay High Court observed recently while upholding the detention of a woman on the ground that she was manufacturing illegal liquor. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the Detaining Authority, in the instant case, rightly formed its opinion that the activities of the petitioner - Saraswati Rathod, were prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

While Imposing Conditions For Bail, Trial Court Cannot Direct Accused To Apply For Passport, Obtain It & Then Surrender It: Bombay HC

Case title: Zakaulla Khazi vs State of Goa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 341

In a significant order, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that a trial court while granting bail does not have any power to direct a person/accused to apply for a passport, obtain it and then surrender it to avail bail. Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande quashed and set aside such an "unusual" condition imposed by a trial court in Agassaim, Goa while granting bail to one Zakaulla Khazi booked in an attempt to murder case.​

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Arbitrator Relying On Non-Executed Agreement, Adopting Non-Judicial Approach

Case title: Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342

The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach.

The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresa noted that the court can interfere with an arbitral award if the interpretation of the agreement/contract by the arbitrator in unreasonable and not based on any evidence. It stated “Construction of a contract is primarily the domain of the arbitrator, unless the arbitrator were to construe a contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable persons could do. Put differently, if the view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible view to take, the award would be liable to be set aside. So also, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award that ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.”

Assessee Can't Be Expected To Deduct TDS From Payments Which Became Taxable Owing To Retrospective Amendment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: ACIT Versus Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 343

The Bombay High Court at Goa, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has held that the assessee cannot be expected to deduct tax at source from payments that became taxable owing to a retrospective amendment. The bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has observed that it is not open to the department to take a divergent view on the expenditure for renovation and construction of schools or temples when it has allowed the expenditure on the purchase of ambulances, which was allowed by CIT(A), based only on the reason that the expenditure was huge.

Maharashtra Govt Decision Hiking Lease Rentals In Mumbai's Bandra Not Extortionate: High Court

Case title: Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

The Bombay High Court has held that the State Government's decision to calculate lease rent based on the value of land given in the 'Ready Reckoner' was not arbitrary. However, it ruled the Government Resolution allowing lease rent revision every 5 years, as per the value of land on date of such revision, was invalid because the original lease deed did not stipulate such revision. The Division Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan and Justice B. P. Colabawalla were considering a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State's Government Resolutions (GR), namely, 2006 GR, 2012 GR and 2018 GR. The government had granted long-term leases of government land to various lessees, located in Bandra, Mumbai.

The Court observed that an expert body of persons fix the average rate of lands and buildings and that the Ready Reckoner is prepared with great deal of detailing, with rated even being fixed street wise. It stated that “there is nothing wrong in the Government looking to the Ready Reckoner rate as a reasonable benchmark of value for the purposes of calculating the revised lease rent.” The Court therefore held that the government could fix lease rent by taking into account the value of the land as per the Ready Reckoner. Further, it observed that each member's liability towards the revised lease rent is a maximum of Rs.6,000 per month, and in some cases, even less than Rs.2,000 per month. In view of this, the Court stated that the increase in lease rent was not exorbitant. However, the it struck down the provision for revision of lease rent every 5 years as the original deed guaranteed a fixed lease rent for the entire term and therefore could not changed through a Government Resolution.

No Foreigner In India Can Be Deprived Of Their Rights: Bombay HC Orders Rs 10 Lakh Compensation To Chinese Woman Harassed By Customs Dept

Case Title: Cong Ling v. FRRO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345

Observing that it is the obligatory duty of the State to ensure that the liberty of foreign nationals coming to India is not deprived except by law, the Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Customs Department to issue a "no objection certificate" (NOC) for facilitating the return of a Chinese national woman to her home country, who was wrongly booked in a gold smuggling case. Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan expressed anguish over the manner in which the Customs Department "harassed" the woman - Cong Ling, who was wrongly arrested in 2019 and since then has been in India leaving her children behind in China, and therefore ordered the Union Government to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to her.

Interpretation Of 'Scale Of Rates' By Tariff Authority For Major Ports Is A Binding Decision: Bombay High Court

Case title: Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 346

The Bombay High Court has held that the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) is the authority to interpret the 'Scale of Rates' fixed by it for services, port dues and other charges under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (MPT Act) and that its interpretation is a 'decision' and binding on the parties involved. The Division Bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain referred to the provisions of the MPT Act. It noted that Section 30 of MPT Act provides that existing rates would apply, unless altered by the competent authority i.e. TAMP. It also referred to Section 42(4) which prohibits any Board Member or authorised person of a port authority from charging any sum higher than that fixed by the TAMP. It further referred to Sections 48 and 49 MPT Act which provide that TAMP must periodically set rates and conditions for services performed by the port authority.

In view of these provisions, the Court observed that TAMP fixes the scale of rates and statement of conditions to be levied by the major ports and thus the TAMP's interpretation of the scale of rates is binding on the port authorities. It remarked “…the view expressed by TAMP is binding on respondent as it is TAMP that has interpreted the scale of rates fixed by it.”

Reassessment Notice Not Complying Section 148 Pre-Conditions Is Beyond Jurisdictional: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Versus ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 347

The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the reassessment notice issued without complying with the pre-conditions mentioned in Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was beyond jurisdiction. The bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has observed that the substantive rights of the original petitioner were governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code. The fact that the original petitioner is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code has been duly brought before the respondents. The bench opined that mere non-mention of the same in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the original petitioner could be taxed in her hands.

If Parole Can Be Given To Share Grief, Why Not To Share Happy Moments? Bombay HC Releases Convict To Meet Son Going Abroad To Study

Case Title: Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

The Bombay High Court earlier this week held that if parole can be provided to a convict in emergency situations or for marriages in the family, it can also be granted for the convict to share "happy moments" with his family like the travelling of his child to some other country for studies. The observation came on a plea filed by a life convict, who sought parole to meet his son, who has secured admission in a university in Australia and is expected to fly out of India on July 22.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted the object of Rules governing parole and furlough provides temporary release of the prisoner, which is warranted so as to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with the family matters and also to save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life and maintain his mental balance by creating active interest in life and to enable him to remain hopeful for the future.

High Court Cannot Deprive Wife Of Her Right To Choose Appropriate Forum To Seek Maintenance: Bombay High Court

Case Title: A vs P

Citation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349

The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance. With these observations, the High Court had dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs, a miscellaneous application filed by a husband, who sought to transfer the DV proceedings initiated by his wife before a Magistrate Court in Sewree to the Family Court in Bandra, where he himself has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife.

'Unconvincing': Bombay HC Pulls Up Authorities For Delay In Deciding Representation Against Preventive Detention Due To Holidays, Official Work

Case Title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 350

The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while dealing with the plea noted that the detenu had forwarded his representation against the preventive detention, on January 25, 2024, and the authorities decided the same after more than a month, i.e. February 26, 2024. The authorities explained the delay by citing reasons such as the detailed report (on detention) could not be prepared by the sponsoring authority as some of the policemen were on bandobast duty and some on election duty. They further cited public holidays, weekly holidays etc for the said delay in deciding the representation of the detenu.

Terming this explanation 'unsatisfactory', the judges in their order observed, "..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."

Court Continues To Be Flooded With Cases Where Minority Members Of Housing Societies Hinder Redevelopment Plans On 'Frivolous' Grounds: Bombay HC

Case Title: M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 351

The Bombay High Court expressed frustration at the conduct of non-consenting members of a Cooperative Housing Society who refused to vacate their flats despite the approval of a Development Agreement by majority of the Society's members. Justice Arif Doctor while considering a Commercial Arbitration Petition filed by a developer, seeking relief against few members of the society, observed, “The docket of this Court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law”

Bombay High Court Releases 18-Yr-Old Who Mowed Down Woman From His Bike, Cites His 'Young Age' And 'Bright Future'

Case Title: Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a youth under charges of causing death by negligence (304-A of IPC) of a woman, whom he dashed while driving his motorcycle in a rash manner, however, it ordered his release under the Probation of Offenders Act (PoA) after noting that he has a "bright future." Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the convict before him, was merely 18-year-old in April 2013, when he drove his newly brought motorcycle for the first time, and mowed down the victim woman, who was sitting outside her house. The judge, while invoking provisions of the PoA Act, said, "The peculiar facts and circumstances of this case were that the Petitioner had just completed 18 years. He was a teenager, and in the excitement and happiness, he might have driven the new vehicle for the first time and lost control. In the ordinary course, he had no reason to take the vehicle away from the road and cause an accident. His age and the way in which the accident happened are the peculiar facts to be considered in this case. He has a bright future."

India's “Richest” Corporation Cannot Act Arbitrarily: Bombay HC Slams BMC For Failure To Provide Rent/Alternative Accommodation To Displaced

Case Title: Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

The Bombay High Court while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for failing to provide either rent or an alternate accommodation to a project affected person (PAP), observed that the BMC being the richest civic body in the country cannot act arbitrarily towards its citizens. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata noted that the house of the petitioner before it was demolished in November 2017 and since then he was neither being paid any rent nor was he given an alternate accommodation. And instead, the BMC has been compelling the petitioner to live at Mahul village in Mumbai, a region already declared "unfit for human habitation" by the High Court in 2019, owing to the air pollution there.

Bombay High Court Criticises RSS Worker For "Thwarting" Rahul Gandhi's Right To Speedy Trial In Defamation Case

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354

The Bombay High Court while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case, criticised the complainant - Rajesh Kunte, a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for unnecessarily protracting the trial and thwarting the Congress leader's right to speedy trial. The case pertained to Gandhi's statement made in a speech made in a political rally in Bhiwandi district during the 2014 general elections, wherein he allegedly accused RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan while allowed a writ petition filed by the Congress leader challenging the order of the Magistrate Court, which permitted Kunte to rely on the transcript of Gandhi's speech. The parliamentarian from Rae Bareli had contended that he cannot be compelled to admit or rely on any documents in the case. The judge in his order pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics. "It can be seen that the respondent No.2 (Kunte) is keeping no stone un-turned to thwart the legitimate right of the petitioner (Gandhi) to get the complaint decided on merits as expeditiously as possible in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides speedy trial. It is difficult to abstruse the conduct of the respondent No.2. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done," the judge observed in his order.

O.21 R. 16 CPC | Transferee Of Property Can Apply For Execution Of Decree Without Separate Assignment Order: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court made a grave error in holding that a transferee of rights in the property needs a separate assignment of the decree for its execution, as it overlooked the Explanation added through the 1977 amendment to Order 21 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which clarified that a transfer of property allows the transferee to execute the decree without a separate assignment.

Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Initiated By Customs Authorities For Seizing Jewellery

Case Title: Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 356

The Bombay High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities for seizing the jewellery against a US national of Indian origin, who was found to be wearing a gold chain with a gold pendant embedded with 12 diamonds. On questioning, the petitioner stated that the gold chain was purchased in 1989 by him from a jeweller in the US for around USD 25,000, which, at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of his arrival in Mumbai from New York, i.e., May 6, 2007, would work out to about Rs. 10,02,500/-. The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, in which it was held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value, provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport.

Bombay High Court Directs Sales Tax Dept. To Refund Rs. 10.70 Crores Excess Paid Under Settlement Scheme

Case Title: M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 357

The Bombay High Court has observed that on reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the amount payable was Rs. 66,17,057, whereas the petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821, which is an excess payment and not a short payment. Therefore, even on this count, a defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. The bench therefore directed the sales tax department to refund Rs. 10.70 crore to the petitioner.

JAO Cease To Have Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notice Outside Faceless Assessment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 358

The Bombay High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would cease to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, outside the faceless assessment. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the JAO did not have the authority to issue the reassessment notices in view of the faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act by the Central Government in the notification dated March 29, 2022.

[UAPA] Investigating Agency Cannot Seek Extension Of Time For Filing Chargesheet Citing Lack Of Sanction: Bombay High Court

Case Title:Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359

The Bombay High Court has held that the investigating agency under the Unlawful Activitives Prevention Act (UAPA) cannot seek an extension in filing the chargesheet citing the lack of sanction. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse held that for filing a chargesheet, there is no requirement of a sanction from the competent authority and the same can be obtained subsequently. The judges further held that in such a scenario, an investigating agency cannot seek extension of time to file chargesheet on the ground that it has to obtain the mandatory sanction from the competent authority.

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act Promotes Open Membership, Rejection Of Applicant Unwarranted If All Conditions Are Met: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 360

The Bombay High Court observed that Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) promotes the concept of 'open membership' and thus, the rejection of membership by a Co-operative Bank based on alleged motives to disrupt its administration, despite the applicants fulfilling all conditions mandated by the MCS Act, was deemed to be a violation of Section 23 of the MCS Act. Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar dealt with a plea challenging the order of the Cabinet Minister for Co-operation, Maharashtra, by which the decision of the Ahmednagar Merchant's Co-operative Bank Ltd. to refuse its membership to the petitioners was upheld.

Investment Allowance Available On Exchange Rate Fluctuation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 361

The Bombay High Court has held that investment allowance is available on exchange rate fluctuations. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ambika Mills Ltd., in which it was held that investment allowance, consequent to exchange rate fluctuation, would be allowable.

Section 148A(d) Order Passed Without Section 151 Sanction Is Illegal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 362

The Bombay High Court has held that if an order is passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of an appropriate sanction in terms of the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the order and the consequent notice under Section 148 would be required to be declared illegal. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that a sanction for passing an order under Section 148A(d) was required to be obtained under clause (ii) of Section 151 as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year for the proceedings to be adopted under Section 148A and thereafter under Section 148 of the Act. However, the sanction was obtained under clause (i) of Section 151.

JAO Not Empowered To Issue Section 148A(b) Notice Under Faceless Assessment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Venus Jewel Versus ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 363

The Bombay High Court has held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a notice under Section 148A(b), as the same would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the notice was invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.

Husband Convicted For Causing Dowry Death Cannot Inherit Deceased Wife's Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 364

A husband convicted for causing the dowry death of his wife stands disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased wife as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar rejected the argument of the Testamentary Department which opined that a person convicted for causing dowry death (under section 304-B of the IPC) cannot be equated with a 'murderer' as prescribed under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the law only disqualifies a person convicted for murder (under section 302 of the IPC). The Court emphasised that Section 25 of the Act disqualified a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder. This expression, it said, must be construed as to advance the object of the Act, which is to disallow devolution of property upon deceased's murderer.

Bombay High Court Criticizes Maharashtra Govt For Its "Mindset" To Curtail Liberty Of Undertrial

Case Title: Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 365

The Bombay High Court criticised the Maharashtra Police for its "mindset" to curtail the liberty of undertrials, who have served more than half of the possible maximum punishment they may be handed over after conviction. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale said in a democracy the police cannot give an impression that it is a Police State. The observations were made while granting bail to one Kartik Prasad, booked under charges of fraud, forgery and the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) (MPID) Act. The bench was irked with the State for urging the court to stay its bail order for four weeks so that it can appeal against the same in the Supreme Court.

Maharashtra's Amendment Exempting Private Schools From 25% RTE Quota If Govt-Run School Exists Nearby 'Unconstitutional': High Court

Case Title: Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 366

The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra government's decision exempting private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections, if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school, is "unconstitutional". The decision was taken by the State this year by amending the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar set-aside the Rules as unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

Victim's Mother Would Not Risk Minor Daughter's Future By Concocting Story Of Molestation Due To Enmity With Accused: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 367

In the conservative Indian society, a mother may concoct a story of her own molestation but would not jeopardise the future of her daughter by falsely implicating someone in a sexual harassment case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while rejecting the argument of a man, convicted for sexually assaulting a girl, said that even in case of enmity, a family will not jeopardise the future of their minor girl by implicating the accused in a false case. The judge pointed out that the parents of the victim in the instant case had no reason to falsely implicated the accused. "If they wanted to falsely implicate the accused, then the mother of the victim would have created an imaginary story of molesting her own modesty. In our conservative society, even on account of family enmity, the future and career of the girl is not jeopardized. In my view, this is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution," the bench underscored.

MSME Council Has Power To Decide Issue Of Its Own Jurisdiction Under MSMED Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368

The Bombay High Court has observed that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has the authority to determine its jurisdiction over disputes under Section 18 of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED). Single-judge Bharat P. Deshpande was considering a challenge to a notice issued by the Nodal Officer for Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated January 1, 2024, which stated that as conciliation between the petitioner and the respondent was not possible, the Council invoked its authority under Section 18 (3) of MSMED Act to refer the matter to arbitration.

Dawood Ibrahim Is A Terrorist In Individual Capacity, Gang Association With Him Not Punishable Under UAPA: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 369

The Bombay High Court has held that the Central Government under its powers has declared underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, a terrorist in his "individual capacity" and thus any association of any person with him or the D-Company, would not attract punishment for being member of a terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to two men booked for their alleged links with D-Company and for their involvement in a drugs seizure case. "Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed, is in the form of Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20," the judges held in their July 11 order.

Individual Members Of Society Can't Be Considered Signatories To The Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 370

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that individual members of the Society cannot be considered signatories to the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as they do not individually participate in its formation or execution of arbitration clause. The bench was dealing with a plea filed by 11 members of a housing society, who filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 concerning disputes arising from a Development Agreement between the Society and the Developer. The Developer challenged the legitimacy of the individuals issuing the notice on behalf of the Society. The Court noted that the agreement clearly provided for arbitration by either a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties or, in the absence of such consent, by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, with each party appointing one arbitrator and these arbitrators mutually selecting a presiding arbitrator. It rejected the argument put forth by the Applicants that the term "the society" should be construed to encompass all its members, including 40 additional individuals besides the Society and the Developer. Such an interpretation, according to the Court, would distort the intended bilateral nature of the arbitration agreement.

Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 371

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature. In the detailed order, the bench held that the court: (i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well-settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions; (ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view, (iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary conclusion, (iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and (v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals.

Stock Broker Forwarding Messages About Dormant Shares Can't Be Booked For Duping Shareholders: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 372

A person in the business of shares, forwarding certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that can be dormant, cannot be booked for duping shareholders, the Bombay High Court observed while granting bail to a stock broker, booked under charges of forgery and fraud. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale while dealing with the bail application filed by one Manish Shah noted that he had only shared a few messages on WhatsApp with the main accused about details of certain shares of the complainant company. "Being a stock broker and in the business of shares, merely because the applicant was in touch with accused No.1 and he forwarded certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that could be said to be dormant, in itself cannot be the basis of claiming that the applicant had a major role to play in duping the shareholders (victims)," Justice Pitale said in the order.

Police Officers Must Follow SC Mandate On Furnishing Grounds Of Arrest To Accused In Writing: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 373

The Bombay High Court has said that every police officer in each case, before making any arrests, must inform the person to be arrested, in writing, the grounds of his arrest and only then proceed to effect arrest, as the same is the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court of India. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to one Pandurang Naik, who was arrested on February 22, 2024, in connection to a cheating case.The judges noted that Naik was arrested on February 22 at 6:00 PM and only his mother was informed about his arrest. He was produced before a court for remand on the following day. He was subsequently charge-sheeted. However, Naik petitioned the bench seeking bail on the limited ground that the due procedure was not followed by the suburban Malad police station in Mumbai by giving in writing the grounds of his arrest. The bench referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and also in Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) cases, wherein the apex court has held that the grounds of arrest must be given by the arresting authority, to the person being arrested, in writing.

Bombay HC Clamps Down On Horse-Trading Tactics In Municipal Elections, Post-Poll Alliances By Independent Candidates To Be Considered Pre-Poll Alliances

Case Title: Kumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

In a move that can halt 'horse-trading' tactics resorted to by independent candidates in the Municipal Councils, a five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that the post-poll alliances (post-poll Aghadi) formed by independent candidates after the elections, will be considered as pre-poll alliance and the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 will be applicable for all purposes for all meetings as a member of such Aghadi till the term of the Council. The five-judge bench headed by Justice Nitin Jamdarhas held that if any such elected independent councillor joins any alliance after the election results are declared, such an alliance will be considered a pre-poll alliance, which will not be limited to subject committees.

Merely Being Customers In A Bar Where Women Are Dancing Does Not Attract Offense Of Obscenity: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nirav Raval vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

Mere presence as customers in a bar where women are dancing in an obscene manner, will not attract offences of obscenity or abetting any crime/obscene act, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak pronounced the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against four Ahemdabad-based men, who were booked from a Bar in South Mumbai for allegedly giving money to a waiter to blow the notes on the women, who were dancing there in an obscene manner.

Allegations Of Ill-Treatment By Man Against His Family Members Cannot Come U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allegations of ill-treatment made by a man against his own family members will not fall within the ambit of section 498A (domestic violence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that in the instant case, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a woman along with her husband, against her in-laws.

"A plain but careful reading of the FIR and the charge sheet indicates that the allegations against the Petitioners are quite general and vague. Undoubtedly, she has given a list of incidents of cruelty in the FIR, however, the instances are also of a nature that do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the husband's relatives. In fact, some of the ill-treatment as alleged is aimed against her husband and not even the complainant herself. Allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his own family members do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 498(A) of the IPC," the bench held in the July 18 judgment.

[Section 9-A CPC] Trial Court Cannot Frame Issue Which Only Disposes Of The Suit In-Part: Bombay High Court

Case title: Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

The Bombay High Court has held that under Section 9-A CPC (now repealed by the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018), a Trial Court cannot frame an issue which has the effect of disposing of the suit only in part. The Court observed that Section 9A CPC enables any party to the suit to raise an objection of jurisdiction at the time of hearing of the application of interim relief. It stated that it is necessary to interpret the term 'suit' consistently throughout Section 9-A. It noted that the phrase 'made in any suit' in the first part of sub-section (1) refers to the application for interim relief being made in the context of the entire suit. Therefore, the expression 'such a suit' in the later part of suit as well.

Bombay High Court Orders Mandatory Presence Of Medical Facilities In All Schools & Colleges Across Maharashtra

Case Title: Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

In a first, the Bombay High Court has ordered all educational institutions in Maharashtra to provide proper first aid and medical facilities for students and employees of the schools and colleges within the college premises, so as to provide immediate possible treatment in cases of emergencies. A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Milind Sathaye noted that educational institutes in larger cities like Mumbai have a substantial strength of students and staff members, who spend a considerable portion of their day away from their homes.

"Medical emergencies can occur due to the commuting requirements (especially in Mumbai) and diverse activities within these institutions. While some institutions may have their arrangements or provide ad-hoc responses by transporting patients to the nearest hospital during emergencies, delays in timely medical treatment can lead to fatal results," the judges said.

'Built Up Area' Definition Can't Have Retrospective Application, Bombay High Court Dismisses Dept. Appeal

Case Title: PCIT Versus G.K. Developers

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

The Bombay High Court has held that the expression 'built up area' introduced with effect from April 1, 2005, could not be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in holding that up to April 1, 2005, the expression 'built up area' would exclude the balcony area. The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that for the first time, the Legislature has defined the expression 'built up area' in Section 80IB(10) by introducing clause (a) to Section 80IB(14) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from April 1, 2005.

Company, Its Officials Must Update Themselves With Ever-Changing Laws, Ignorance Not An Excuse For Breaking It: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ajay Melwani vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

The Bombay High Court on Monday while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a businessman observed that ignorance of law is not an excuse for breaking it. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale refused to quash an FIR lodged against one Ajay Melwani, who was booked under relevant provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, for exporting a banned chemical to a company based in Italy. The bench while dismissing his plea, even refused to accept his argument that he was unaware of the notification issued by the Indian Government mandating a 'no objection certificate' for permitting export or production of the said product.

Decks Cleared For Release Of Film 'Teesri Begum' After Makers Agree Before Bombay High Court To Remove "Jai Shri Ram" Slogan From Scene

Case title: KC Bokadia vs CBFC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The Bombay High Court on Monday cleared the decks for the release of film "Teesri Begum" after the makers agreed to remove "Jai Shri Ram" slogan from its climax scene. The makers of the film have agreed with the suggestion of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to remove the slogan "Jai Shri Ram" from a scene of the film, wherein the main character, a Muslim man, upon being attacked by his Hindu wives, recites "Jai Shri Ram."

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules | Gratuity Of Employee Can Be Withheld Until Conclusion Of Criminal Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case title: The State of Maharashtra & ors. vs. Mr. Baban Yeshwant Ghuge

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

The Bombay High Court held that gratuity benefits of a State government employee can be withheld under Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 if there is a criminal appeal pending against the employee. The gratuity is payable only on completion of 'judicial proceedings' i.e until final orders are passed in the criminal appeal.

The High Court referred to Rule 130, which provides that a provisional pension should be provided to the employee during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings. However, under the said rule gratuity cannot be paid 'until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon'. The Court stated that this expression indicates that the passing of the final order has a material bearing on the employee's entitlement to receive gratuity.

Unfortunate That Everyone Wants To Show That Their Religion And God Are Supreme: Bombay High Court On "Vande Mataram" Row

Case title: Pramod Shendre vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed the FIR lodged against an army man and a doctor who allegedly outraged sentiments of Muslims and asked few men to "either say Vande Mataram or go to Pakistan". A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadiand Vrushali Joshi however lamented that now-a-days everybody wants to show that his or her religion or God is the Supreme. It emphasised that India is a secular country and people should respect each other's religions.

“We are constrained to observe that now-a-days people have become more sensitive about their religions, may be more than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion or God is Supreme. We are staying in the democratic secular country, where everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, we would also say that if one person says that his religion is Supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues," the bench observed.

If Burden Of Excess Duty Passed On To Customers, Granting Refund Would Result In 'Unjust Enrichment': Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

The Bombay High Court has observed failure to protest the imposition of alleged excess octroi duty by the Municipal Corporation is a relevant circumstance in deciding against ordering any refunds. Further, the Court stated that if the petitioner cannot establish that the burden of any excess duty was not passed on to its customers, granting refund in such a case would result in 'unjust enrichment'.

Commission Of Sexual Act By Any Of The Accused Is Sufficient To Rope In Remaining Accused In Offence Of Gang Rape: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sandip Talande vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that commission of a sexual act is not mandatory for one to be roped in as an accused in a gang rape case and instead commission of a sexual act by even one person (among the accused) is enough to convict the others (in the group) for gang rape. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while hearing appeals filed by four men, convicted for gang raping a woman, noted that while only two accused ravished the victim, the other two had overpowered her friend and do not let him save her.

Bombay High Court Accepts Apology Of Mumbai Police Crime Branch Officers Accused Of Barging Into Residence After Midnight

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

The Bombay High Court recently closed a litigation wherein officers of the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police were accused of barging into the house of a resident of plush Juhu area in the midnight. A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak had ordered the Crime Branch, Mumbai Police to respond to a plea filed by one Shyamsunder Agarwal, who alleged that around 12 policemen barged into his house on January 30 this year, at 12:00 AM to 03:00 AM.

Doctrine Of Separability; Arbitration Agreement Survives Termination Of Main Contract: Bombay High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. G. Avachat and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote has held that an arbitration agreement survives the termination of the main contract facilitating the resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. Therefore, the bench dismissed a writ petition noting that the dispute was arbitral and fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause.

Bombay High Court Calls For Regular Checks On Mid-Day Meal Providers To Ensure Children From Marginalised Sections Don't 'Suffer In Silence'

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

Co-operative Court Has Jurisdiction Over Property Recovery Disputes U/S 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act: Bombay High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

The Bombay High Court held that a Co-operative Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving co-operative societies' seeking recovery of property and mesne profits, under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). The Court stated that such disputes fall under the category of 'management of the Society' and therefore come within the scope of Section 91.

Asking Wife To Clean House And Show To In-Laws On Video Call Is "Sadist Ill-Treatment": Bombay HC While Refusing To Quash Cruelty FIR

Case Details: Hardik Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

Asking a woman to clean the house and show the same on a WhatsApp video call to the in-laws is a sadist manner of ill-treatment, the Bombay High Court said recently while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under section 498-A against five members of a family.

Other orders/Observations:

Centre Argues in Bombay High Court: IT Rules 2021 Crucial in Upholding Right to Truth Against Fake News

The central government in pleas challenging the 2023 IT Amendment Rules told the Bombay High Court that not preventing fake or false news would violate the fundament right of the recipient of such news to know correct information and not be misled, which also flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that right to know and right to not be misled are equally important as right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

“Unless and until you exercise your right of speech and expression in such a way that you communicate the truth and you are prevented from communicating what is utterly false and fake, the recipient's right under Article 19(1)(a) is violated”, Mehta submitted.

Bombay High Court Slams Maharashtra Govt. Over Prisoner's Premature Release Policy Violation

The Bombay High Court pulled up the Maharashtra government for failing to adhere to its own guidelines for providing premature release to prisoners.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande expressed displeasure over the State government flouting its own policy while denying premature release to prisoners, otherwise entitled for the same.

"Time and again this Court and also the Supreme Court has said that the State has to adhere to its guidelines and cannot exercise any prerogative. Yet we are coming across so many matters wherein you are not adhering to your own policy. So let's rest the issue now. Either you (State) adhere to your policy or just do away with it," Justice Dangre orally remarked.

The bench, therefore, ordered the Additional Chief Secretary of the State's Home Department to file an affidavit clarifying the stand of the State.

Bombay HC Judge Neela Gokhale Recuses from Abu Salem's Prison Transfer Plea

Bombay High Court judge Justice Neela Gokhale recused from hearing the plea filed by 1993 Mumbai Bomb blast convict Abu Salem, who sought to assault the decision of the jail authorities to shift him to some other prison from the Taloja Central Prison.

"Consider Long-Term Impact On Mental Health": Bombay HC To State On German Bakery Blast Convict's Plea Against Alleged Solitary Confinement

The Bombay High Court asked the jail authorities of Nashik Central Prison to reconsider the request of Mirza Himayat Baig, a convict in the 2010 German Bakery Blast in Pune, to shift him out of the Anda Cell in Nashik, where he is allegedly kept in solitary confinement.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak asked the jail authorities to consider the "long-term impact" of such confinement on the convict.

Bombay High Court Seeks Response From Centre, State On Plea To Ban Plastic Flowers

The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra and the Central governments to file their affidavits in response to a writ petition seeking to ban the use of plastic or artificial flowers meant for decoration and other purposes.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a petition filed by Association of Natural Flower Growers, Pune, which sought a direction to ban the use of plastic flowers citing they are covered under the notification issued by the State in 2022, banning all plastic items meant for single-use.

Bombay HC Orders Directorate Of Higher Education To Look Into Allegations Of 'Institutional Casteism, Sexual Harassment' Within ILS Law College

The Bombay High Court on its administrative side has asked the Directorate of Higher Education, Pune to look into the allegations of 'institutional casteism, ragging, sexual harassment, hooliganism, favouritism and ill-treatment of minority students' levelled by over 118 students and alumni of the ILS Law College, Pune. In a letter addressed to the Directorate of the Higher Education on July 4, the Registrar Judicial of the Bombay High Court has requested the authority to “look into the grievances voiced by the students in their May 21 letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, and act in accordance with law.” The Registrar has further asked the authority to communicate the action it proposes to take, to the complainant students, at the earliest.

"Remarks Against Rohingyas & Bangladeshis, Didn't Hurt Indian Religious Sentiments": State To Bombay HC In Hate Speech Case Against BJP Leaders

Using the words Rohingyas, Bangladeshis or Jihadis is not against the Muslim community living in India, the Mumbai Police told Bombay High Court on Tuesday while justifying its decision not to invoke section 295A (outraging religious sentiments) against BJP leaders Nitesh Rane, T Raja and Geeta Jain. "No case is made out for section 295A. The entire statement is against the Rohingyas and Bangladeshis. The provision in question is for outraging sentiments of Indians and admittedly the Rohingyas and Bangladeshis are not from India and they have entered our jurisdiction illegally and that is an admitted position," the Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar told the High Court.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandakwas was hearing a bunch of petitions seeking action against Rane and other BJP leaders for delivering objectionable and hate speeches against the Muslim community at four different places - Ghatkopar, Mankhurd, Malwani in Mumbai and Kashimira in Mira-Bhayander, during the month of January this year. Taking the statement on record, the judges disposed of the petition observing that most of the prayers sought for in the petition have been fulfilled. "A conscious statement is made by the highest officers of the police departments in Mumbai and Mira-Bhayander, not to invoke section 295A. We accept the said statement. Leave is granted to the petitioners to seek for invocation of section 295A at the appropriate stage (framing of charges) before an appropriate forum," the bench said in the order.

Bombay High Court Directs Patanjali Ayurved To Deposit Rs 50 Lakh For Breach Of Injunction Order In Trademark Infringement Case

Case Title: Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors. (Interim Application (L) No. 4586 of 2024)

The Bombay High Court has directed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 to the court as it violated an injunction/ad-interim order of the Court that had restrained the company from selling its camphor products, in relation to a trademark infringement case filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd. Justice R.I. Chagla took note that Patanjali Ayurved has itself admitted that it has been supplying camphor products post the injunction order. The Court stated that there was an admission on part of the defendants regarding the breach of the injunction order “for which the Defendants would necessarily have to purge the contempt of the injunction order.” Before passing an order on contempt of the injunction order, the High Court directed Defendant No.1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the Court.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Permanent Appointment Of 7 Additional Judges Of Bombay High Court, Fresh 1-Yr Term For 2 Addl Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium, comprising CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B R Gavai has recommended to make 7 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court as Permanent Judges. Additionally, two other Additional Judges were recommended for a fresh term of one year with effect from October 07.

Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Govt Over Advisory Board On Persons With Disabilities Remaining Defunct Since 2020

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Maharashtra government for failing to make functional, the State Advisory Board, as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Physical Disabilities Act, 2016, for the last four years. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar noted that the Advisory Board, which has to take up the cause of people with disabilities, has been lying defunct since 2020 as the State did not fill up the vacancies in the said board. The bench said the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandated the setting up of an Advisory Board.

Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Sanjay Chhabria Booked In Yes Bank-DHFL Multi-Crore Scam

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail application of developer Sanjay Chhabria of the Radius Group, involved in a money laundering case related to the multi-crore Yes Bank-DHFL Scam. This is the second time that Chhabria's bail was rejected by the High Court. He was arrested in April 2022 on the allegation that a company related to him has availed a loan of ₹ 2,137 crores from DHFL. The allegation is that this amount was a 'proceed of crime' as it was part of the amount which was given to DHFL by Yes Bank, in an illegal manner. Further, he did not use the said amount for the purpose for which it was availed but instead the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that most of the amount was used for personal gains through sham companies.

Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale dismissed his bail plea saying there was prima facie material to show his involvement in dealing with the proceeds of crime. The judge noted that the ED has elaborately stated in its report the money trail, showing the manner in which the amounts of loan totalling more than ₹ 2,000 crores were diverted at the behest of Chhabria, without being utilised for the purpose for which the loan was taken.

Plea Filed In Bombay HC Against Rahul Gandhi, Dhruv Rathee, Uddhav Thackeray For Allegedly Spreading False Narratives About 'EVM Hacking'

A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking contempt proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray, Aditya Thackeray, Sanjay Raut and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, for allegedly interfering in a sub-judice matter. As per the petition, the respondents – Rahul Gandhi and others, had posted on the social media platform 'X', a story by newspaper 'Mid-Day', about an FIR being registered for hacking of EVMs allegedly by the family members of Ravindra Waikar, a Shiv Sena Leader from the Shinde faction. The petition claims that the said news item was factually wrong and the newspaper had issued an apology for the same. However, the respondents continued to create false narratives about the issue. The petitioner seeks to take action against the respondents for “their highly unlawful activities by spreading false narratives and conspiracy theories and interfering with the investigation and due process of law.”

RSS Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Gets Relief From Bombay High Court

In a relief for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a Bhiwandi court order allowing the transcript of his speech as additional evidence in the criminal defamation case filed against him by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Rajesh Kunte. Single-judge Justice Prithviraj K Chavan allowed a writ petition filed by the Congress leader challenging the order of the Magistrate Court, which permitted the RSS worker to rely on the transcript of Gandhi's speech, wherein he had allegedly blamed the right-wing outfit for killing Mahatma Gandhi.

'Unable To Focus, Come With Specific Issues': Bombay High Court Inclined To Close Plea Related To Potholes In Mumbai

The Bombay High Court on Friday expressed that it was inclined to close the proceedings stemming out of a contempt of court petition highlighting the issue of potholes across Mumbai and neighbouring cities. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar expressed that the court and also the authorities were unable to focus on the main issue as there are several intervenors coming up during each hearing.

"Every day a new party will be coming in and we will only be impleading people daily. We lose our focus and even the authorities. So, we are inclined to close these proceedings. But yes, if a specific case comes, we will focus on it and even the authorities will then focus," the Chief Justice said.

Bombay High Court Halts Maharashtra Govt's Demolition Drive In Communal-Violence Hit Vishalgadh Fort Area Of Kolhapur

The Bombay High Court last week pulled up the Maharashtra government for demolishing around 70 structures in the Vishalgadh fort area in Kolhapur where communal violence broke out between two groups on July 14. A communal violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Vishalgadh fort area on July 14 and from July 15 itself the State's Public Works Department (PWD) initiated demolition process in the disturbed area, pulling down houses, shops etc., the court was told. While the Maharashtra government maintained that it was only razing commercial structures, which aren't protected by any court order, the division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla ordered the State not to pull down any structure be it commercial or a household one. The bench even slammed the State for initiating demolition process during rainy season, which is against the State's own notification.

Law Student Moves Bombay High Court After Professor Tears His Answer Script For Demanding Extra Supplementary Sheets

A law student has petitioned the Bombay High Court after his answer sheet was torn by a professor as he demanded extra supplements for writing his exams. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil issued notice to the DY Patil Law College at Pimpri. The bench also ordered the authorities to preserve the CCTV footages of the exam hall and also of the principal's cabin, where the incident of tearing of the answer sheet took place. In his petition through Advocate Sanket Bora, the student pointed out that he has been a meritorious student from the very first year of his five year law course. He stated that just before his 8th semester exams, he had sent a request to the College Principal through email, for providing additional supplements for writing his answers since the 36-page answersheet is not sufficient for him. On June 11, when the petitioner appeared for his Practical Training Paper (II) Alternate Dispute Resolution, a professor of the college was the supervisor, who, the petitioner alleged was in an inebriated condition and tore his answer sheet while collecting it as he was unhappy with the petitioner sending a mail to the principal asking for more supplements,

Uddhav Faction Candidate Moves Bombay High Court Challenging Election Of Shinde Faction MP Ravindra Waikar

Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) leader Ravindra Waikar's election to the 18th Lok Sabha has been challenged before the Bombay High Court by an election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar, who lost to the former by a mere 48 votes. Kirtikar, a candidate from the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction) has sought a declaration against the election of Waikar from the Mumbai North-West Constituency and instead seeks to declare him as a winning candidate. Kirtikar, who lost by a mere margin of 48 votes has alleged several lapses on part of the Election Officers such as not permitting him to file an application for recounting of votes, permitting use of mobile phones in the counting area, allowing impersonators to cast 333 votes etc.

Bombay HC Directs Meta, Other Platforms To Remove 'Deepfake' Videos Of NSE's CEO Urging Investors To Join Whatsapp Group For Stock Tips

Case title: National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. vs. Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.

The Bombay High Court ordered social media platforms, including Meta and WhatsApp, to remove Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated videos of the MD and CEO of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) that showed him urging the common investors to join a WhatsApp group for stock picking tips. The Court held that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules), the social media intermediaries are under an obligation to remove misleading and fake content.

Justice R.I. Chagla was considering the interim application filed by NSE (plaintiff) for directing the social media platforms (defendant nos. 1 to 6) to remove AI-generated videos of Mr. Ashishkumar Chauhan, NSE's MD and CEO. The Court stated that the NSE made a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim relief against the intermediaries as well as unknown perpetrators.

"Sheer Harassment Of Citizens" Bombay High Court Slams Mumbai Police, BMC For Failing To Act Against Menace Of Hawkers

The Bombay High Court on Monday, came down heavily on the Mumbai Police and also the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for failing to resolve the "recurring" issue of illegal hawkers across the city. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata was irked over the Mumbai Police and the BMC both seeking time to submit their "action taken reports." The judges lost cool after one of the shopkeepers informed them that despite evicting hawkers earlier, they have once again "encroached” upon the entrance of his shop and one could barely enter the shop.

Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Indrani Mukherjea From Visiting Spain And The United Kingdom

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered Indrani Mukerjea, the prime accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, not to travel to Spain or the United Kingdom (UK) till July 29. Single-judge Justice Sarang Kotwal passed an interim order staying the special court's order dated July 19, by which, Indrani was permitted to travel to Spain and United Kingdom for updating her bank documents and her Will with regards to her properties in Spain.

"Income Tax Dept Can't Control Sentiments Of Devotees": Bombay HC Reserves Order In Appeal Against Anonymous Donations To Shirdi Sai Baba

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday while closing for orders an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), observed that the department cannot control the sentiments of devotees making anonymous donations to the Shrine. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somashekhar Sundaresan reserved orders in the income tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions).

Should Security Of Shirdi Sai Baba Temple Be Beefed Up? Bombay High Court Constitutes Committee

Taking note of the importance of the issue, the Bombay High Court recently constituted a committee, to be headed by a former chief secretary, to re-assess the security of Shri Sai Baba temple at Shirdi and to decide if the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) needs to be deployed within the temple premises for security of the sanctum and also of the lakhs of devotees. A division bench said the issue is 'highly sensitive' as it pertains to the security of the shrine as well as the devotees of Sai Baba.

"We deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to constitute a Committee headed by a former Chief Secretary, to re-assess the security of the temple and its premises and to make it's recommendations to this Court as to whether the CISF needs to be deployed in the entire shrine/temple premises or part thereof or only in the core area covering the building in which the holy Shrine/Samadhi of Shree Sai Baba is situated. So also, the committee may suggest a combination of options, viz. CISF with CRPF or SRP or Home guards," the judges said.

Elgar Parishad Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Default Bail To Surendra Gadling, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Sudhir Dhawade & Rona Wilson

The Bombay High Court today rejected the default bail to Dalit rights' activist and advocate Surendra Gadling and co-accused Mahesh Raut, in the infamous Elgar Parishad case of 2018. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak pronounced the order in their chamber. Bail was also denied to Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawade and researcher Rona Wilson. The bench had closed the matter for orders in May 2024.

"What Kind Of Democracy Is This?" HC Pulls Maharashtra Police For Action Against Prof Who Referred To Slain Activist Govind Pansare's Book

What kind of a democracy is this? the Bombay High Court questioned after noting that a lady Professor was subjected to departmental enquiry on a letter written by the local police to her College after she referred to a book "Shivaji Kon Hota" (Who was Shivaji?) written by comrade Govind Pansare. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan pulled up the Maharashtra Police for writing a letter to the educational institution to take action against the petitioner Professor - Dr Mrunalini Aher, as she referred to a book "Shivaji Kon Hota" to pacify students, who had attacked another professor for their speech on venerable personalities.

"What kind of a democracy is this?" Justice Mohite-Dere questioned Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, who appeared for the Police. The judges lost cool after noting that it was only pursuant to the letter written by the Police, the College initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner, a Professor of English at the Yashwantrao Chavan College.

Lok Sabha Polls: Bombay High Court Issues Summons To Ravindra Waikar On Plea To Disqualify Him

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued summons to newly-elected Member of Parliament (MP) Ravindra Waikar of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) on an election petition filed by Amol Kirtikar, a candidate of the Shiv Sena (UBT (Uddhav Thackeray) faction), who has challenged the former's election to the 18th Lok Sabha from Mumbai North-West constituency. Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne issued notice while hearing the plea filed by Kirtikar and has made it returnable on September 2.

Vishalgadh Communal Violence Broke Out During Rain, Was Difficult To Control Miscreants: Maharashtra Police Tells Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on July 29, imposed a cost of Rs 4 crores on Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. for violating an injunction/ad-interim order of the Court, which had restrained the company from selling its camphor products in relation to a trademark infringement case filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd. Patanjali now has a total of Rs 4.5 crores imposed on it.

Bombay High Court Constitutes Committee To Resolve 'Precarious' Road Conditions In Nagpur City

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently criticised the civic body and other concerned authorities in the city for their 'mismanagement and unplanned execution of road work' which has ruined the condition of the roads. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri noted that even the recently constructed roads have developed potholes, which is majorly because of the failure of the authorities to properly supervise the road work execution.

Citizens Or Hawkers, No One Must Suffer: Bombay High Court Directs BMC To Take Pro-Active Steps To Address Menace Of Illegal Hawking

The Bombay High Court while asking the Maharashtra government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to take 'proactive' measures to curb the menace of illegal hawkers, said no one must 'suffer' be it citizens, authorised hawkers or even unauthorised hawkers. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata while hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition regarding the menace of illegal hawkers, on Monday, said the problem is 'mammoth' and thus only pro-active measures will help the authorities in curbing the same.

PIL In Bombay High Court Seeks Suicide Prevention Training Workshops For Students At Mumbai University, Cites Rising Suicide Rates

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the High Court of Bombay to direct the University of Mumbai to conduct suicide prevention training workshops for its students. The petition also seeks the appointment of at least two teachers from affiliated colleges to conduct these workshops. Additionally, it seeks to direct the university to display the contact details and roles of college counsellors on the college website, notice boards, counselling rooms, admission prospectus and annual souvenirs.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkarheard the PIL on Monday and ordered the State to file its reply to the same.

Freedom Of Expression Doesn't Grant License To Exploit Celebrity's Persona: Bombay HC 'Protects' Arijit Singh's Personality Rights

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking implementation of the ban on using Plaster of Paris (PoP) to manufacture religious idols. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar heard the matter on Wednesday and issued notice to the respondent authorities. The Court sought a reply from the State about the list of idol makers using eco-friendly materials.

The petitioners allege that the Maharashtra State authorities, including the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai have failed to implement the ban on immersion of PoP idols in water bodies.

Bombay High Court Extends Interim Bail Of Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal For Two Months