Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 559 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 572

Nominal Index:

M/s BK Polimex India Private Limited vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 559

Deepak Deshmukh vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 560

Maruti Krishana Naik & Ors. vs. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & Anr.,2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 561

Andreas Stihl Private Limited versus The Joint Commissioner of State Tax & ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 562

Rohan Borse vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 563

Nainesh Panchal vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 564

Balaji Puyad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 565

Shishuvihar Shaishanik Sanstha & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. , 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 566

Air India Charters Ltd vs. Tanja Glusica & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 567

Sharad vs. The Chief General Manager, Telecom (R.E.) Project & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 568

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd vs. Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 569

Suruchi Rajendra Gurjar vs. Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Authority & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 570

Doctor vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 571

Vijayamala Tanaji Ghuge & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 572

Judgments/Final orders:

Every Nude Painting Or Depiction Of Sexual Intercourse Poses Is Not Obscenity: Bombay High Court Slams Customs For Confiscating Paintings

Case Title: M/s BK Polimex India Private Limited vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 559

The Bombay High Court recently while ordering the release of the paintings of renowned artists Francis Newton Souza and Akbar Padamsee, held that every nude painting or painting depicting some sexual intercourses poses cannot be styled as obscene.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain noted that the decision of the Assistant Customs Commissioner (ACC) in Mumbai, was 'obsessed with his notions of obscenity' and thus he confiscated and directed the destruction of the artworks by Souza and Padamsee.

ED Misused Its Powers To Arrest, Acted As Per Its Whims & Fancies: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In PMLA Case

Case Title: Deepak Deshmukh vs Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 560

The Bombay High Court last week while granting bail to a man arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that the anti-money laundering agency "misused" its powers of arrest and acted as per this own "whims and fancies."

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan slammed the ED for arresting the petitioner Deepak Deshmukh in a predicate offence lodged way back eighty years ago (in 2016) in which he was neither named nor chargesheeted. 

Violent Strike Justifies Immediate Termination Without Enquiry: Bombay HC

Case title: Maruti Krishana Naik & Ors. vs. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 561

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld Advani Oerlikon Ltd.'s decision to terminate workers who participated in illegal strikes and violent protests without conducting a prior enquiry. The Court ruled that where employee misconduct clearly jeopardizes workplace safety, as evidenced by acts of obstruction, intimidation, and assault, employers can justify termination retrospectively in court proceedings.

Outstanding Demand Under Maharashtra Settlement Can't Be Adjusted Against Refund Payable Under Maharashtra VAT Act: High Court

Case Title: Andreas Stihl Private Limited versus The Joint Commissioner of State Tax & ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 562

The Bombay High Court held that authorities under MVAT Act while exercising powers under Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Taxes, Interest, Penalties or Late Fees Act, 2022, cannot invoke provisions of Section 50 of MVAT and that too in review proceedings under Settlement Act.

The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that there is no provision under Settlement Act which provides for calculation of outstanding arrears of a particular year to be arrived at after adjustment of refund for another year more so in a case where there is no such adjustment of refund order on date of application or on date of settlement order u/s 13 of Settlement Act.

Bombay High Court Allows Medical Officer To Contest Upcoming Elections; Orders State To Accept Resignation

Case title: Rohan Borse vs. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 563

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered the Maharashtra Government to accept the resignation of a Medical Officer, who seeks to contest in the upcoming State Legislative Assembly elections.

A vacation court presided over by Justices Sandeep Marne and Manjusha Deshpande ordered the State to accept the resignation of Dr Rohan Borse, a Grade 'A' Medical Officer deployed at the District Civil Hospital at Nasik.

Bombay High Court Orders Enquiry Against Police Officers For Using AC, Water-Cooler, TV, Computer At Police Station Without Paying Supplier

Case Title: Nainesh Panchal vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 564

The Bombay High Court was recently disturbed to note that a police station in Thane city used air-conditioners, water coolers, computers, LED TV, printers and other valuable electronic devices, for free and later on when the supplier demanded money, the station officers returned the equipments without paying a penny.

A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Dr Neela Gokhale ordered the Director General of Police, Maharashtra to look into the allegations and file a report before it.

Prisoners Cannot Be Asked To Wait For Over One Year To Avail Parole In Emergency Situations Involving Their Family: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Balaji Puyad vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 565

Issues like family members' serious illness, wife's delivery, natural calamities etc are unforeseen and thus a prisoner cannot be asked to wait for one and a half years, till he becomes eligible to avail the facilities of furlough or parole leaves, the Bombay High Court held recently.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande directed the Superintended of Central Jail, Nashik to reconsider its decision on the application filed by the petitioner Balaji Puyad, who has sought parole leaves in wake of his wife's illness but was denied.

Three-Year Limitation on Salary Arrears Claims Upheld: Bombay HC Restricts Teacher's Back Pay Despite Continuous Employment

Case title: Shishuvihar Shaishanik Sanstha & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 566

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme partially allowed a writ petition challenging an Education Officer's order regarding salary arrears, ruling that despite continuous employment, claims for salary arrears must be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the petition.

Principal Employer Can't Escape Liability Under EC Act By Claiming Workers Were Through Contractor: Bombay HC

Case title: Air India Charters Ltd vs. Tanja Glusica & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 567

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed Air India Charters Ltd.'s appeal against compensation awarded to a deceased pilot's dependents. The Court held that under Section 12 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the principal employer bears primary liability for compensation even when workers are engaged through contractors.

Termination Without Section 25F Notice; Monetary Compensation Adequate When Employee Found In Similar Employment: Bombay HC

Case title: Sharad vs. The Chief General Manager, Telecom (R.E.) Project & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 568

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare upheld the Labour Court's decision to award monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to a casual laborer whose services were terminated without following due process. The court emphasized that while termination without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, reinstatement is not an automatic remedy, especially when the employee has found similar employment elsewhere.

Industrial Court Lacks Jurisdiction In Absence Of Clear Employer-Employee Relationship: Bombay HC

Case title: M/s. Tata Steel Ltd vs. Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 569

A single Judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed Tata Steel's writ petition. It held that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the employment status of canteen workers, as the nature of the employer-employee relationship was itself disputed. The court ruled that under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, the Industrial Court can only hear cases where an undisputed employment relationship exists.

Indefinite Probation Extension Beyond Regulatory Limits Invalid; Bombay HC Reinforces Procedural Safeguards

Case title: Suruchi Rajendra Gurjar vs. Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Authority & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 570

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice M.M. Sathaye ruled that Mumbai Port Authority's (MbPA) termination of a Chief Law Officer's probation based on an internal inquiry report without due process was stigmatic and unjustified. The Court found that the indefinite extension of probation violated the Mumbai Port Trust Employees Regulations, 2010, which caps probation at three years.

S.498-A IPC | Matrimonial Dispute Is Not Moral Turpitude; Cannot Be Used To Block Spouses' Right To Education: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Doctor vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 571

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently held that a matrimonial dispute or case is a 'personal dispute' which cannot be termed to be an offence related to 'moral turpitude' to impact either of the spouses right to pursue further education in their lives.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar permitted a husband to pursue his All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) - 2024, a course for which he was held 'ineligible' on the ground that he has been booked in a section 498-A case along with charges under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

UGC Ph.D. Requirement For Promotions In Maharashtra Colleges Can't Be Applied Retrospectively: Bombay High Court

Case title: Vijayamala Tanaji Ghuge & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 572

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme ruled that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Ph.D. requirement for promotion to Associate Professor, introduced in 2018, applies prospectively and does not impact faculty who qualified under earlier regulations. The State of Maharashtra was directed to review the petitioners' promotion applications based on 2016 regulations.

Other orders/Observations:

Teachers Of Private Engineering College Move Bombay High Court Against Poll Duties

Around 90 teachers of a city-based private engineering college have moved the Bombay High Court against their requisition by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for performing poll duties during and before the upcoming Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Elections.

The petitioner teachers, have taken exception to various communications pertinently the one issued by the ECI on October 16, asking the Thadomal Shahani Engineering College in the western suburbs of Khar, to send their employees, especially teachers for poll duties.