Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 22 July – 28 July, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

Nominal Index

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

Judgments/Final Orders:

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 Jamdar has 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 Kankanwadi and 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.

Other orders/Observations:

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.