Home
/

High Courts
/

Bombay High Court
/
Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup:...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: 05 August – 11 August, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

12 Aug 2024 1:00 PM GMT

Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

Federal Brands Ltd. vs. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

Namdeo Chormule vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

Nitin Upadhyay vs State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

B. G. Exploration and Production Versus The State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

Sujith Kumar Rangaswami (Criminal Appeal 1268 of 2023),2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

Samad Habib Mithani vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1241 of 2014), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

Divvela Ramaiah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

Prahlad Feku Gupta vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

Bhavesh Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

Eka Academy Private Limited Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Jindal Drugs Limited And Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust vs. Ganu Mahadu Gaikar & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

Govind Kondiba Tanpure & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

Shri. Narayan Damodar Thakur & anr. vs. Shri. Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Versus SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

Judgments/Final Orders:

HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging Maharashtra Govt's Tender For "Anandacha Shidha" Scheme To Distribute Subsidised Food Kits On Ganesh Chaturthi

Case Title: Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Food , Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Dept

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 400

In a reprieve for the Maharashtra government, the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed petitions questioning the tender process initiated by the State to implementing its "Anandacha Shidha" (Kit of Joy) a scheme by which the State would be distributing subsidised food kits to 1.7 crores beneficiaries for the upcoming Ganesh Chaturthi festival.

As per this scheme, which was first introduced for last year's Diwali festival, the food kits comprising of 1 Kg each of Suji (Semolina), Sugar, Chana Daal (Chickpea Lentils) and Soyabean Oil, will be made available at Rs 100. The scheme was also extended for Gudi Padwa (Marathi New Year) and now the government has announced that the said food kits will also be distributed for the Ganesh Chaturthi festival.

Not Mandatory For Assessment Order To Contain Reference Disclosing Its Satisfaction Of Each And Every Query: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

The Bombay High Court has held that it is not mandatory for assessment orders to contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised. The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that since there is no discussion or finding on the issue of hazardous waste in the order, the respondent department should be taken as having accepted the petitioner's explanation.

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Maharashtra Govt's 'Ladki Bahin' And 'Yuva Karya' Schemes

Case Title: Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra Government's 'Ladki Bahin Yojana' and 'Yuva Karya' schemes. A division bench of
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar while dismissing the petition remarked, “We are not moved by what you are saying. This is a speech for roads and not courts.”

No Provision Under CPC To Extend Time For Filing Written Statement Due To Pendency Of Miscellaneous Application: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Federal Brands Ltd. vs. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

The Goa Bench of Bombay High Court observed the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not provide for any exclusion or extension of time period during which a miscellaneous application was pending while calculating the condonation of delay in filing a written statement.

Cases Filed Before July 1, 2024, Will Be Investigated As Per CrPC And Not BNSS: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court's Goa bench recently held that in cases lodged before July 1, 2024, the provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) will apply to the investigations and not the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande rejected the argument that since the new law has come in, the cases lodged prior to July 1, will have to be investigated as per the newly enforced BNSS.

No Premeditation: Bombay High Court Quashes Attempt To Murder Charge Against Man Booked For Pouring Rat Poison In Wife's Mouth During Quarrel

Case Title: Namdeo Chormule vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man from charges of attempt to murder holding that his act of pouring poison in the mouth of his wife during a quarrel was not 'premeditated' and thus can be punished under charges of attempt to culpable homicide.

Single-judge Justice Sarang Kotwal while acquitting one Namdeo Chormule noted that he was convicted by a court in Solapur for pouring rat poison in his wife's mouth. However, the judge opined that instead of convicting Chormule under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the trial court could have convicted him for a lesser offence of attempt to culpable homicide (section 308 of IPC).

Pulling Woman's Hair, Pushing Her During Quarrel Doesn't Outrage Her Modesty: Bombay HC Grants Relief To 5 Followers Of Bageshwar Baba

Case Title: Nitin Upadhyay vs State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

The Bombay High Court on Monday said that merely pulling hair or pushing a woman during a quarrel does not amount to outraging her modesty as there must be an 'intention' to outrage her modesty. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan refused to direct Mumbai Police to invoke section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against five men - Abhijit Karanjule, Mayuresh Kulkarni, Ishwar Gunjal, Avinash Pandey and Laxman Pant - all followers of Godman Dhirendra Shastri alias Bageshwar Baba.

Keeping Mutual Divorce Proceedings Pending Causes Mental Agony: Bombay High Court Waives 6 Months Cooling Period, Dissolves Marriage

Case Title: Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

A newly married couple, unable to reside together for various reasons, itself is mental agony, said the Bombay High Court recently, while holding that in cases where the wife and husband have agreed to mutual divorce and there being no scope for reconciliation, the mandatory six months cooling off period can be waived off.

Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse dissolved a marriage between a couple after noting that the couple despite filing divorce by mutual consent, was compelled to undergo the mental agony of keeping the proceedings pending for further six months due to the cooling off period.

Bombay High Court Quashes Show Cause Notice Issued Without Mentioning Documents Required To Be Furnished By Assessee

Case Title: B. G. Exploration and Production Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

The Bombay High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was in a printed format with only the period, date, and time filled up and did not give details of the information or documents required to be furnished.

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that before passing best judgment assessment, Section 23(2) provides that if the registered dealer fails to comply with the terms of any notice issued under the sub-section, the Commissioner shall assess to the best of his judgement the amount of tax due from the assessee. In the show cause notice, no details of documents required to be produced have been given. The pre-conditions required to pass the best judgment assessment are not satisfied.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Five Members Of Sanatan Sanstha, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Booked For Conspiring To Bomb 2018 Sunburn Fest

Case Title: Sujith Kumar Rangaswami (Criminal Appeal 1268 of 2023)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to five men, alleged members of Hindu right-wing organisations - 'Sanatan Sanstha' and 'Hindu Janjagruti Samiti' arrested in 2018 for their alleged conspiracy to explode bombs at the then ongoing Sunburn festival in Pune district to terrorise the participants.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while granting bail noted that though the allegation is that the five men - Sujit Rangaswami, Amit Baddi, Ganesh Miskin, Shrikant Pangarkar and Bharat Kurane, conspired to execute bomb blasts in the ongoing festival, yet the festival concluded successfully.

[Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act] No Provision For Cooperative Court To Return Plaint Before Appropriate Court When It Lacks Jurisdiction: HC

Case Title: Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

The Bombay High Court observed that there is no provision in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) which empowers the Cooperative Court to return a plaint before an appropriate court when the Cooperative Court has no inherent jurisdiction to try the concerned dispute. It further observed that even though the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is applicable to a Cooperative Court to a limited extent, this does not make the Cooperative Court a 'civil court'.

S. 498A IPC | In-Laws Can't Be Booked Merely On Allegations That They Supported Husband Who Subjected Wife To Cruelty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Samad Habib Mithani vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1241 of 2014)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

The Bombay High Court recently held that merely because the complaint states that the in-laws supported the husband in subjecting her to cruelty would not mean that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande quashed a case of cruelty against four members of a family, all in-laws of a woman, who had lodged a section 498A complaint against them including her husband, in March 2014.

Institute Of Actuaries Of India Regulations | Bombay HC Upholds Validity Of Regulation Disallowing Associate Members From Getting Certificate Of Practice

Case Title: Divvela Ramaiah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 'Institute of Actuaries of India (Admission as Member and Issuance of Certificate of Practice) Regulations 2017.' Regulation 10 sets out the qualifications required to obtain a 'Certificate of Practice' (CoP). This CoP allows a person to practice as an Actuary under the Actuaries Act, of 2006.

Denying Furlough Just Because Convict Is Unmarried Is Not A Good Ground: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Prahlad Feku Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that the jail authorities cannot deny furlough or parole leaves to a convict merely on the ground that s/he is young and is unmarried and thus might flee and not return to the prison.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi on August 1, ordered the Special Inspector General, Prisons, Nagpur, to consider the application filed by one Prahlad Gupta, 26, a murder convict, who sought furlough leave to meet his family in Uttar Pradesh. The judges, even junked the argument of the jail authorities that since the convict is an 'unmarried' person, he may flee while on furlough.

Ghatkopar Billboard Collapse: Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Accused Bhavesh Bhinde

Case Title: Bhavesh Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed the petition for release filed by Bhavesh Bhinde, the owner of the giant hoarding that collapsed in Ghatkopar area of Mumbai amid heavy rains and winds, killing 17 persons and injuring around 70, on May 13. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande passed the order saying it found no merits in the case.

Bombay High Court Directs Govt. To Constitute A Committee To Decide SVLDRS Declaration Filed On 30th December 2019

Case Title: Eka Academy Private Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

The Bombay High Court has directed to constitute a committee to decide the declaration that was filed by the petitioner on 30th December 2019 and, on or before 30th September 2024, dispose of the declaration in accordance with law.

The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the amount payable has been quantified before 30th June 2019. The scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand. The primary focus, as succinctly put across by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from the pre-GST regime so that the business can move on.

[Electricity Act] Relabelling Of Products Not 'Manufacturing', Such Activity Not Eligible For Industrial Tariff Categorization: Bombay HC

Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Jindal Drugs Limited And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

The Bombay High Court has held that the activity of relabelling products does not constitute 'manufacturing' under the Electricity Act, 2003. It stated that manufacturing under the Electricity Act would require conversion of raw materials into a fresh product using electricity-powered machines and thus relabelling would not fall within such activity.

Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act | Trust Land Must Be Included In Schedule-I To Claim Exemption, Order U/S 88B Insufficient: High Court

Case Title: Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust vs. Ganu Mahadu Gaikar & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

The Bombay High Court has held that an exemption order granted to a Trust under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BT&AL) is not sufficient to claim exemption of the land from the provisions of the Act. The land must be included in Schedule I of the BT&AL Act to claim such exemption.

The Court also observed that Section 32-G of BT & AL is a deeming provision and vests title of the land being cultivated by a tenant as on 'tillers day' (01.04.1957) and thus any subsequent exemption granted to the trust will have no effect on the tenant's rights.

Principle Of Denial Of Relief On Grounds Of Laches Applicable To PIL: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Govind Kondiba Tanpure & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

The Bombay High Court observed that the principle of denying relief on grounds of delays and laches is applicable to Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It emphasized that in the absence of an explanation for the delay from the petitioners, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[LARR Act, 2013] Collector's Award Must Be Challenged In Application U/S 64 To Be Referred To Authority: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

The Bombay High Court observed that Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("LARR Act") can only be invoked if the application under the provision challenges the Collector's award. It stated that the contents of the application must indicate it is an application under Section 64 of the Act.

Subletting Must Be Presumed In Commercial Tenancy Where Tenant Allows Outsider To Use The Premises For Profiteering: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri. Narayan Damodar Thakur & anr. vs. Shri. Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

The Bombay High Court observed that in commercial tenancy, if a tenant permits an outsider to use their shop to do business, subletting can be presumed. It emphasized that beneficial legislation like the Rent Control Act should be misused by the tenant and thus in cases of misuse of tenancy protections, subletting should be inferred.

Income Tax Additions Can't Be Made On The Basis Of Superficial Inquiry: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Versus SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

Article 21 Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime, Accused Cannot Be Kept Behind Bars Indefinitely Without Progress In Trial: Bombay HC

Case Title: Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man booked in a rape case observing that Article 21 of the Constitution of India will apply irrespective of the nature of the crime.

Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in her order passed on August 6 noted that the accused was arrested on December 15, 2021, and was in custody since then. The judge further noted that an earlier bail application was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file a fresh plea if the trial did not commence within six months.

Other orders/observations:

Senior Advocates Cannot Intimidate Juniors: Bombay High Court Raps Senior Lawyer For Raising Voice At Newly Appointed State Counsel

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up a Senior Advocate for "intimidating" a newly appointed Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) while arguing a criminal matter. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan lost their cool when a designated senior counsel tried to intimidate the lady APP by raising his voice.

"Mr advocate you need to stop this. We are not going to tolerate this. You cannot intimidate her like this. This is not expected from senior advocates. You just cannot intimidate a newly appointed APP," a visibly upset Justice Mohite-Dere told the senior advocate in open court.

Section 498A IPC Is Indeed Being Misused, Even Bed-Ridden Persons Are Being Roped In: Bombay High Court Observes Orally

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reiterated its concerns over the rampant misuse of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while maintaining that they do have "sympathy for the victims" of the offences under section 498A, said they yet feel that the law is being misused.

Why Is Nagpur Airport Shut Daily Since March 2024? Bombay High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance; Seeks Response From Authorities

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, earlier this month, took suo motu cognisance of the issue of the Nagpur Airport being kept shut for at least eight hours on a daily basis since March 2024. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri took cognisance of a news report in a Marathi daily on August 2, wherein it was disclosed that the operation of the Nagpur Airport was being kept shut every day due to some repair work being carried out on the runway.

IT Rules Amendment & Fact-Check Units: Bombay High Court's Tie-Breaker Judge Reserves Judgment

The Bombay High Court's "tie-breaker" judge Justice Atul Chandurkar on Thursday reserved his judgment in petition filed by comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the IT Amendment Rules, 2023, which empowers the Central government to establish Fact Checking Units (FCUs) to identify any "fake or misleading" information on social media.

Trade Mark Infringement: Bombay High Court Restrains Indian Pharma Company From Using Mark 'Deceptively Similar' To International Firm

Case Title: Les Laboratories Servier vs Sefier Life Science Private Ltd. (Com IPR Suit (L)/18086/2024)

The Bombay High Court recently restrained an Indian company from using a trade mark, 'deceptively similar' to an International pharmaceutical company, observing that the primary duty of the court is towards the public.

Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla restrained Sefier Life Science Private Ltd. an Indian company, which has been manufacturing medicines here and exporting it to various countries. The plaintiff -Les Laboratories Servier, is an international and independent pharmaceutical group governed by a non-profit foundation. It is presently in about 150 countries with more than 22,000 employees all over the world, the court noted.

How Was An Ordinary Citizen Able To Obtain 'MLA Sticker' For Use On Personal Car? High Court Asks Mumbai Police To Probe

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed Mumbai Police to investigate how a local resident obtained an 'authorised' sticker meant for Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Maharashtra, for his personal car.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone VI, Mumbai Police, to ascertain the 'source' of the sticker found on the personal vehicle of one Chandrakant Gandhi, a resident of Tilak Nagar in suburban Mumbai.

'Defamatory & Reckless' : Bombay High Court Asks Malayali YouTuber To Take Down Video Against Malabar Gold

Case Title: Malabar Gold Limited vs Shajan Skariah (Suit(L)/24425/2024)

The Bombay High Court recently restrained a Malayali YouTuber Shajan Skariah from making any "defamatory" posts against Malabar Gold Limited and further issued a directive to him to pull down an 'objectionable' video already posted on the social media platform. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor after hearing the brief submissions made by the counsel representing Malabar Gold said the video in question is per se defamatory.