Home
/

High Courts
/

Bombay High Court
/
Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up:...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: June 3, 2024 To June 9, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

14 Jun 2024 3:30 AM GMT

Reports/Judgments

Birth Of First Child Before Joining Service not a bar for availing Maternity Leave After Joining Service Under AAI Regulations: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain in the case of Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr held that birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering of maternity leave after joining the service. The object of Maternity Benefit Regulation under AAI Regulations is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period.

The court further held that

“The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period and, therefore, it is in that context that the condition of two surviving children is imposed”

Thus the court held that the birth of the first child from the first marriage before joining the service would not be relevant for considering the claim of maternity leave post her joining the Respondent for the purposes of the 2003 Regulation.

With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition.

No Irreversible Actions In Winding Up, Company Court Can Transfer Proceedings To NCLT: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction In the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Classic Diamonds (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja held that as long as no irreversible actions, such as actual sales of immovable or movable properties, have occurred, the Company Court retains the discretion to transfer proceedings to the NCLT.

The bench held that it is only where the winding up proceedings have reached the stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back, that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up instead of transferring the proceedings to NCLT.

Bombay High Court Restrains Release Of Film “Hamare Baarah” Allegedly Derogatory To Islamic Faith Till June 14

Case Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli Ltd & Ors v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

The Bombay High Court restrained the release of film “Hamare Baarah” on any public platform until June 14, 2024.

A division bench of Justices NR Borkar and Kamal Khata was dealing with a writ petition against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking to revoke the certification granted to the film and thereby injunct it from being released.

“Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are restrained from in any manner exhibiting, circulating or making available for viewership to the general public the film in question, namely “Hamare Baarah” on any public forum/platform including the platforms of the Respondent Nos. 10 to 12, till 14^th June 2024”, the court directed.

Bombay High Court Allows Release Of Film 'Hamare Baarah' After Makers Agree To Delete Certain Controversial Dialogues

Case Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

The Bombay High Court allowed the release of the film Hamare Baarah after the makers agreed to delete certain controversial dialogues.

A vacation bench of Justice Kamal Khata and Justice Rajesh S Patil was dealing with a writ petition against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking to revoke the certification granted to the film and thereby injunct it from being released.

“We are of the view that if an individual such as in this Petition is permitted to stall the release of movies which have been duly certified by the CBFC it would encourage holding film producers to ransom,” the court said.

Withholding Of Salary Or Emoluments Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of Offence Of Cheating: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 282

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice N. J. Jamadar in the case of Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors held that withholding of salary or emoluments does not fall within the ambit of offence of cheating.

The court held that for the offence of cheating, there needs to be deceit coupled with injury. Cheating involves deception, fraudulent and dishonest inducement and thereby making the person deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain any property. The court further held that

“The withholding of a portion of the salary/emoluments by no stretch of imagination can fall within the dragnet of the offence of cheating as the employer cannot be said to have either deceived the employee or fraudulently, or dishonestly induced the employee to deliver the property or give consent to any person to retain the property or intentionally induced the employee to do or omit to do anything, which the employee would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived.”

The court further held that to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention of the accused should be dishonest from the inception of the transaction. However, the act of AIL to deduct the salary/emoluments was in exercise of its authority as an employer. Terming such deduction as illegal is different than terming such deduction to be cheating.

Long-Term Continuance Of Employment Does Not Create Inherent Right To Regularization: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors. held that regularization of services cannot be claimed merely based on long-term continuance of employment as this does not create any inherent right to regularization.

The court relied on the landmark Supreme Court Judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. which established that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and regularization can only be considered in cases of irregular (not illegal) appointments against duly sanctioned posts where the employees have worked for ten years or more without court orders.