Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 09 - December 15, 2024

Nominal Index:

Khimjibhai Patadia vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625

Jayanth Kumar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 626

Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627

Abdul Samad Akbar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 628

Bharat Dedhia vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 629

Vijay Fasale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 630

A.H. Wadia Charity Trust & Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 631

Rekha Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 632

Ashwini Ashish Dighe vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 633

Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 634

Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635

Judgments/Final Orders:

'Sophisticated Form Of Extortion': Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 5 Lakh Costs On 'Unscrupulous' Tenant For Frivolous Petition

Case Title: Khimjibhai Patadia vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625

The Bombay High Court while slapping a fine of Rs 5 lakh on a tenant for 'obstructing' redevelopment of a nearly 83-year-old building, observed that often such petitions by tenants amount to 'sophisticated form of extortion' and thus such 'obstructionist' behaviour of the tenants must be deterred.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata noted that filing petitions in the court is the 'quickest and cheapest' method, often resorted to by the tenants to stall redevelopment of old and dilapidated buildings.

Duty Bound To Implement Court Orders: Bombay HC Imposes 25K Cost Over Police's Failure In Returning Passport Despite Court Order

Case Title: Jayanth Kumar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 626

The Bombay High Court on Monday while pulling up the Mumbai Police for not returning the passport of a man, despite a clear order by a Sessions court, said the Police is duty bound to implement an order passed by any court.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shivkumar Dige also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the State for the failure of the officers at Mumbai's plush Cuffe Parade Police Station, to return the passport of one Jayanth Kumar.

Unified Development Control & Promotional Regulations Must Be Read In Consistence With Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act: High Court

Case title: Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627

In a case relating to the denial of Occupation Certificate (OC) to a developer, the Bombay High Court has observed that the restrictions on land use and development commences when the Draft Regional Plan (DRP) under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) is published.

In doing so, a division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that the any permission granted under the MRTP Act before coming into effect of the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (UDCPR) would be valid, as the UDCPR has to be read in a manner that is consistent with the MRTP Act.

Mira Road Communal Riots: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 14 Muslim Men, Booked For Rioting, Injuring Hindu Family

Case Title: Abdul Samad Akbar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 628

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to 14 Muslim men accused of rioting and injuring a Hindu family as it celebrated the consecration of the Ayodhya Lord Ram Temple in Mira Road, on January 21, this year.

Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar noted that the accused were in custody since January and the fact that given the huge number of witnesses and accused, the trial is unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time.

"Cannot Force Citizens To Run From Pillar To Post": Bombay HC Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Insurance Company For Circumventing Ombudsman's Order

Case Title: Bharat Dedhia vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 629

The Bombay High Court on Monday, while slapping exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on an insurance company, ordered the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and the Ministry of Finance to consider coming up with a mechanism to keep a check on insurance companies as to whether they are complying with the orders of the Insurance Ombudsman.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra jain was irked to note that despite a clear order of the Ombudsman passed on May 3, 2021 directing the insurance company - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to pay Rs 27.13 lakhs to one Bharat Dedham (68), the company did not pay the same, citing some or the other reason.

Bombay High Court Slaps ₹25K Costs On School Clerk For Attempting To 'Hoodwink' Judiciary

Case Title: Vijay Fasale vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 630

The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on a clerk working in an educational institution, for attempting to 'hoodwink' the judiciary.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe deprecated the practice of litigants filing "chance" petitions.

Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation To Wadia Trust For Land Acquired For Mumbai Airport, Cites Amendment To Section 25 Of 1894 Law

Case title: A.H. Wadia Charity Trust & Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 631

While considering land acquisition references, the Bombay High Court has observed that if an award is passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after amendment to Section 25, the court is empowered to grant compensation at a higher amount than that awarded by the Collector as per the amended provision.

Prior to the amendment, Section 25 stipulated that the Court could not grant compensation higher than what was claimed by claimants before the Collector in the inquiry under Section 9 of the Act.

In-Laws Keeping Young Child Away From Mother In Defiance Of Court Order Is Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rekha Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 632

In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that keeping a minor child away from the mother in defiance of a court order would amount to mental harassment and cruelty.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi refused to quash an FIR against the in-laws of a woman, after noting that her husband, the main accused, had been absconding. The bench noted that the husband had taken along with him, his four year old daughter, despite a clear order from a Family Court to hand over the child's custody to the complainant mother.

Authority Processing Duty Credit Scrip Applications Is 'Adjudicating Authority' For Appeal Under Foreign Trade Act: Bombay High Court

Case title: Ashwini Ashish Dighe vs. Union of India & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 633

In a case under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the Bombay High Court held that the authority processing applications for duty credit scrip entitlement must be considered an 'adjudicating authority', whose decisions are subject to appeal, for the limited purpose of Section 15 read with Section 9 of the Act.

A division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain was of the view that the authority processing the application for issuance of MEIS scrip under Section 9 would have to treated as an adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of Section 15 read with Section 9.

Advocate Casting Aspersions On Woman's Character Upon Instructions From Client Is Discharging His Duty, Not Insulting Her Modesty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 634

The Bombay High Court recently held that an advocate, when casts aspersions upon a woman's character, on instructions from his client, is basically discharging his duty and thus cannot be booked for insulting the modesty of the woman punishable under section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande delivered the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against one Ratnadeep Ram Patil, who was booked for insulting a woman by making personal allegations against her.

High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator.

Other Orders/Observations:

Ineligibility To Pursue 3-Yr LLB Course Was Raised After Graduation: Plea In Bombay HC Challenges State Bar Council's Denial Of Enrolment

A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court against the Bar Council of Maharashtra's decision to deny sanad/enrolment to a law graduate who completed a 3-year LLB on the ground that her aggregate marks in bachelor's degree prior to LLB were less than 45% aggregate marks.

Lulu International Malls Assures Bombay High Court It Will Not Play Copyright Songs On Its Premises

The Lulu International Shopping Malls, recently assured the Bombay High Court that henceforth it will not use sound recordings or songs owned by the Phonograhic Performance Limited (PPL) without obtaining a valid licence from it. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla accepted the statement made by the mall.

No Reason To Disallow Procession On Tipu Sultan's Birth Anniversary: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday asked the Maharashtra government if there was any ban on celebrating the birth anniversary of Mysore King Tipu Sultan.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shivkumar Dige made the query while hearing a plea filed by one Faiyaz Shaikh, the Pune President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party, who sought to carry out a rally to coommerate the birth anniversary of Bharat Ratna Maulana Azad and Tipu Sultan along with the Constitution Day.

Copyright Infringement: Bombay High Court Orders YouTuber 'Flying Beast' To Remove Videos Featuring Castrol's Zero-Gravity Flight Experience

In a copyright infringement suit filed by Castrol India Ltd., the Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction against Gaurav Taneja, the popular YouTube vlogger behind the 'Flying Beast' channel, restraining him from infringing Castrol's copyright related to its marketing campaign for a zero-gravity flight experience.

The Court also ordered Taneja to remove two videos from his YouTube channels that featured the experience, as he did not credit Castrol or its campaign in the videos.

"If You Cannot Enforce Laws To Remove Hawkers, Let People Take Law In Their Hands": Bombay High Court Slams Maha Govt

The Bombay High Court on Thursday while coming down heavily on the Maharashtra government over its failure to curb the menace of illegal hawkers, said the State must clarify its stand as to whether it will comply with court orders or not or let people take the law in their own hands and do whatever they feel like.

Cops Instructed To Give Priority To Court Proceedings: State Tells Bombay HC After Objections Over "Less Weightage" Given To Court

The Maharashtra Government recently informed the Bombay High Court that the State's Director General of Police would soon be issuing a circular instructing the police officers across the State to take court proceedings 'seriously' and to give it 'priority' over other works.