Nominal Index

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 368 to 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

1. Shailesh Shah, Legal Heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Harilal Shah Versus The Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 368

2. M/s. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

3. Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

4. Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

5. Oasis Realty v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

6. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

7. Pundlik Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

8. Binoy Kodiyeri v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

9. Sheetal Dilip Jain v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

10. Ruju Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

11. Jyotsna D'souza v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

12. NRC Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

13. Sandip Sarjerao Sule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

14. Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38115. Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

16. Rutuja Ramesh Latke v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

17. G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

18. Sushilabai w/o Vaijinath Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

19. Pandurang Sitaram Choudhari (Borse) & Ors. v. Sunil Pralhad Choudhari & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

20. Shubham Vijay Patil and Ors. v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

21. Sachin Laxman Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

22. Sm. Mina v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

23. Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

24. Yash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 391

25. Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392

26. ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 393

27. Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 394

28. Chandrakant Narayan Salvi v. Chandrakant Krushna Kumbhar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 395

29. Bharat Bhusan v. The Chairman, Joint Seat Allocation Authority and Ors. with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 396

30. Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 397

31. Mandar Pramod Vichare v. Thane Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 398

32. Dashrath Arjun Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 399

33. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 400

34. Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

35. Shivaji Nagar Rahivashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

36. Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

37. Nayana Premji Savala v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

38. Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

39. Narendra S/o Chuhadram Sharma v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

40. Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

41. Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

42. Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

43. Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

44. Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda Versus State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

45. Kusum Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State Minister for Co-operation, Department of Co-operation and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

46. Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

47. Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

48. Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

49. Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

50. Shardul Shamprasad Dev v. Manjiri Shardul Dev 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

51. Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

52. Surendra Murlidhar Kopulwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

53. Muzaffar Manzoor Kadri v. State Govt. of Goa and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

54. Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

Reports

1. Reassessment Notice Issued Against A Dead Person Would Be Invalid: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shailesh Shah, Legal Heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Harilal Shah v. The Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 368

The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice against a dead person would be invalid unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that where the legal representatives do not waive their right to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against the dead person is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Income Tax Act.

2. 'Lab Lacked Accreditation To Analyse Whiskey Samples': Bombay High Court Quashes FSSA Proceedings Against Alcohol Manufacturer

Case Title: M/s. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Food and Drugs Administration against the alcohol manufacturer Pernod Ricard in 2021 for alleged violation of the regulation on declared level of ethyl alcohol content in the whisky.

The court observed that the lab that analysed the sample was not accredited for testing whisky. The court stated that the tests must be carried within the valid scope of recognition of the Food and Drugs Administration Laboratory that had tested the samples.

3. Custodial Interrogation Is Not Imperative Merely Because Offence Is Murder: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused

Case Title: Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

The custodial interrogation of an accused is not mandatory merely because he's been booked in a murder case, the Bombay High Court held while granting anticipatory bail to a man booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the man's legitimate apprehension of arrested was enough to seek pre-arrest bail adding the offence allegedly occurred three years ago wherein he allegedly had a limited role.

4. Employer Cannot Deny Back Wages Citing 'No Work No Pay' After Refusing Reinstatement Due To Pendency Of Appeal Against Acquittal: Bombay HC

Case Title: Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently held that an employer cannot deny wages citing pendency of a criminal appeal against an employee's acquittal on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil And Sandeep V. Marne granted back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner in a writ petition challenging Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited's decision to not pay back wages despite him being acquitted by the trial court.

"In our opinion, mere pendency of the appeal against acquittal would not entitle the respondents to continue the penalty of removal from service," the court said.

5. Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit

Case title: Oasis Realty v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor court noted that any payment towards output tax, whether self-assessed in the return or payable as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the MGST Act, can be made by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Hence, a party can pay 10% of the disputed tax either using the amount available in the electronic cash ledger or the amount available in the electronic credit ledger.

6. Anil Deshmukh May Not Get Convicted, Sachin Waze's Statements Contradictory: Bombay High Court In Bail Order

Case title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate stating that Deshmukh, in all probability, "may not be ultimately convicted".

The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar refused to rely solely on Sachin Waze's statements considering his contradictory stand before the Justice Chandiwal Commission wherein he denied all the allegations against Deshmukh. The court also cited Waze's chequered past to prima facie discredit him as a witness.

7. Well Qualified Wife Expressing Desire To Pursue Job Not Cruelty; Reproductive Choice Insegregable To Woman's Personal Liberty: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pundlik Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

The Bombay High Court held that a wife expressing a desire to work does not amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further said that the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an insegregable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke upheld family court's refusal to grant divorce to the husband on the ground that cruelty is not proven.

The court said that cruelty has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of the family life. The husband's allegation that the wife was harassing him by expressing that she wants to do the job is vague. Expressing desire by wife who is well qualified that she wants to do the job does not amount to cruelty. The husband has to make out a specific case that the conduct of wife was such a nature that it was difficult for him to lead the life along with her, the court said.

The husband had also accused his wife of terminating her second pregnancy without his consent and thereby subjecting him to cruelty. The bench said that even if the husband's allegations were taken at face value, the wife cannot be accused of cruelty for making a reproductive choice.

8. No Offence U/S 376 IPC- Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Binoy Kodiyeri Following Settlement of Rs. 80 Lakhs

Case Title: Binoy Kodiyeri v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR by consent against Binoy Kodiyeri, son of CPI(M) former secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan in a rape case after it was informed that the parties had arrived at a settlement of Rs. 80 lakhs for the woman and the couple's child.

In the consent terms before the bench of Justices R P Mohite-Dere and S M Modak, the woman withdrew all her statements which carry allegation that Kodyeri is her husband. She also said that their relationship was consensual.

9. Minimum 30 Days' Time To Be Granted To File Reply To GST SCN: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sheetal Dilip Jain v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

The Bombay High Court held that Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act) permits a person chargeable with tax for a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment of such tax along with interest payable. If he does not wish to make payment, then within the 30-day period he could file a reply to the show-cause notice.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that to file a reply to the show-cause notice, the statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer.

10. Consider Handing Over All Roads Within Greater Mumbai To BMC: Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: Ruju Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to consider Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner Iqbal Chahal's suggestion of handing over all the roads in Greater Mumbai to the civic body for their better upkeep and maintenance.

In a contempt matter related to the bad condition of roads, the court found Chahal's proposal "appealing" while considering it from the aspect of coordination, monitoring, upkeep and maintenance of the roads.

The division bench of the Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik also said it expects the civic body to complete concretization work on all its roads within 30 months.

11. Objectionable Pictures Annexed With Petitions Invade Parties' Privacy: Bombay HC Advises Advocates To Exercise Caution

Case Title: Jyotsna D'souza v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

The Bombay High Court warned all advocates against annexing objectionable pictures to petitions filed in the High Court, citing the invasion of privacy.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Justice SM Modak imposed cost of Rs. 25, 000 on the petitioner's advocate who had annexed pictures to the petition.

"We expect, all lawyers/Advocates to exercise some discretion and proportion whilst annexing the photographs which are highly objectionable. Annexing such photographs certainly invades upon the privacy of the parties," the bench observed.

12. Adani's IBC Acquisition: Bombay HC Directs MSEDCL To Provide New Electricity Connection Without Clearance of National Rayon Co.'s Past Dues Worth 28Cr

Case Title: NRC Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

The Bombay High Court directed the State Electricity Department to provide a new electricity connection to National Rayon Corporation (NRC) without seeking clearance of NRC's "Rs. 28 crore pending dues."

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse prima facie agreed with NRC's argument that MSEDCL's didn't file a claim before the Resolution Professional in time, therefore, its claim for past dues stands extinguished. Under the IBC, the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan on July 3, 2019, however MSEDCL put in its claim first in October 2019.

The bench rejected MSEDCL's argument that it was the Resolution Professional's responsibility to include its claims while preparing the resolution plan citing pending litigation between NRC and MSEDCL.

13. S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC Bats For Making Offence Compoundable In Maharashtra, Says Minimum 10 Quashing Petitions Are Filed Everyday

Case Title: Sandip Sarjerao Sule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

The Bombay High Court urged the Union of India to consider Maharashtra's bill to make domestic violence cases (498A IPC) compoundable with the permission of the concerned court citing hardships caused to innumerable couples who are constrained to approach the High Court for quashing.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and SM Modak asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to take up the issue with the concerned Ministry at the earliest.

14. [Maharashtra Protection Of Depositors Act] Seriousness Of Accusation No Reason To Deny Bail To Undertrial If Half Sentence Served: High Court

Case title: Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of crores of rupees under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, observing that gravity of his offence cannot be a reason to deny him benefit of section 436-A of the CrPC.

Relying on SC's judgement in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Justice Bharati Dangre observed, "I do not think that the seriousness of the accusation would deny him the benefit flowing from the said section, when his case squarely falls within sub-section (1) of Section 436A, on having undergone more than half of the period of maximum imprisonment."

15. Bombay High Court Slams BMC For Insensitivity, Directs Developer To Vacate Land Reserved For Nair Hospital Extension

Case title: Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

The Bombay High Court recently directed Rubberwala Developers Private Limited to vacate the land reserved by the BMC for extension of Nair Hospital in Byculla, Mumbai.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed that there has been gross abuse of powers at the cost of overwhelming public interest in a PIL petition seeking that the land reserved for extension of the hospital be handed over to the hospital.

BMC should have evicted the developer on noticing that it had obtained the rights in the premises without written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, the court stated.

16. BMC's Refusal To Exercise Discretion Without Justifiable Reason, Situation Was Avoidable: Bombay High Court On Rutuja Latke Resignation

Case Title: Rutuja Ramesh Latke v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

"Discretion is not to be used at the sweet will of the authority and in a whimsical manner. If, in the given facts and circumstances, the Court finds that there is a failure of justice, the writ court has the power to issue necessary directions," the Bombay High Court observed while granting relief to Rutuja Latke, a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation employee and prospective candidate for the legislative assembly by-polls.

The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh said that while the Municipal Commissioner has the discretion to waive the notice period, the only factor that could be considered in the exercise of this discretion are the exigencies of administration. If the circumstances for the exercise of discretion exist and discretion is still withheld for no reasons, such refusal would be arbitrary and ultra vires.

17. UAPA Trial Without Valid Sanction Is Void; Procedural Safeguards Can't Be Sacrificed: Bombay High Court While Discharging GN Sai Baba

Case Title: G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) discharged former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others in alleged Maoist links case. The Court has allowed their appeals against conviction and life sentence imposed under the anti-terror law UAPA.

The Court held that the trial was null and void as valid sanction as required under Section 45 of the UAPA was not obtained. The Court observed that procedural safeguards cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a "perceived peril to national security".

18. Merely Because S.482 CrPC Does Not Prescribe Limitation Period Does Not Mean Parties Can Approach Court With Inordinate Delay: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sushilabai w/o Vaijinath Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

The Bombay High Court held that a party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC at his whim and caprice merely because the provision does not stipulate any period of limitation,

Division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh S. Patil sitting at Aurangabad observed that within what time a petitioner should approach the Court under Section 482 CrPC depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, such time must be reasonable, not vitiated by inordinate delay and latches.

19. Appellate Court May Remand A Case Back Only Where Trial Court Skips Finding On Certain Issue Or Decides Suit Only On Preliminary Issue: Bombay HC

Case Title: Pandurang Sitaram Choudhari (Borse) & Ors. v. Sunil Pralhad Choudhari & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

The Bombay High Court held that an order of remanding case back can be passed by the Appellate Court only if the trial Court skips finding on certain issue or decides the suit only on preliminary issue by leaving open the vital issue in respect of the real controversy between the parties.

Bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More sitting at Aurangabad added that no remand can be made if the trial Court has decided the suit by considering the entire evidence on record and when the appellate Court, in view of the said material, is able to reassess the evidence to ascertain whether the findings given by the trial Court are sustainable or not.

20. Only Students Residing In District Where Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Is Situated Are Eligible For Admissions: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ku. Shubham Vijay Patil and Ors. v. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

The Bombay High Court held that the students seeking admission to a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) must be resident of the same district in which the JNV is located. The student must have completed 5^th standard from the same district as well.

"Candidate seeking admission to the JNV must satisfy the twin test (i) he must be studying in class V in Government / Government aided or other recommended schools or B Certificate Competency Course of NIOS in the same District where the JNV is situated and (ii) he must be resident of the same district where the JNV is situated and is seeking admission", a division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha held.

21. Bombay HC Says Father Wanted To Teach Daughter's Young Lover A Lesson, No Intention To Kill, Sets Aside Life Sentence

Case Title: Sachin Laxman Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

The Bombay High Court set aside the life sentence awarded to a carpenter and his son in an honour killing case and instead held them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It observed that the duo just wanted to "teach the victim a lesson" for continuing the relationship with the girl.

The bench held the duo's actions of first accosting, assaulting, then overpowering and striking the woman's 20-year-old suitor with a hammer, and finally fleeing the scene when people gathered, in the accused's favour. The victim belonged to a different caste.

22. Married Daughter Of Deceased Also Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sm. Mina v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

The Bombay High Court held that a married daughter of a victim of a railway accident would also be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act even though she may not be dependent on him, the Nagpur bench of.

"If Section 123(b)(i) of the Railway Act is perused, it is the definition of dependant wherein daughter is included. There is no qualification either married or unmarried daughter. As such claimant is entitled for compensation," said Justice M.S. Jawalkar.

23. Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

The Bombay High Court held that a passenger who is forced to cross the railway tracks due to absence of a foot over bridge and gets hit by a train cannot be called negligent and his dependents would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench referred to the definition of 'passenger' under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and observed that the definition does not suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger after alighting from the train and meeting with an accident. The court noted that the Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept.

24. Hazardous To Force Parties To Litigate Despite Compromise In Domestic Violence Cases U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Yash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 391

The Bombay High Court observed that it would be "hazardous" to force a couple to litigate when they want to live happily while underscoring the importance of quashing domestic violence cases once parties arrive at a settlement, even though they are categorized as non-compoundable offence.

A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh Patil noted that refusing to quash disputes despite amicable settlements, would be a "dis-service to the society for the protection of which the courts exits."

25. Order I Rule 10 CPC | Theory Of Dominus Litis Can't Be Overstretched To Exclude Necessary Parties From Suit: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)

Case title: Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392

The Bombay High Court held that the trial court has "full power" under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to add a party as defendant if necessary to decide a suit, even if the plaintiff does not choose to implead said party.

The court said that there is no doubt that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and it is his choice to seek an injunction only against the person see chooses.

However, the powers of the trial court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code are very wide and extensive. The court can implead any party at any stage even without an application if it thinks that their presence is necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the suit.

26. Marry Girlfriend You Abandoned Within A Year: Bombay High Court's Bail Condition For Rape Accused

Case title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 393

The Bombay High court granted bail to a man accused of raping a woman and abandoning her, on the condition that he would marry her within a year.

Justice Bharti Dangre observed that the prosecutrix and accused were in a consensual relationship, and the man refused to marry her when she was six months pregnant. The accused submitted before the court that he and his family members were ready to solemnize the marriage and accept the paternity of the child. However, the court was told, the prosecutrix is now untraceable as she was charged with abandoning the child.

"In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail subject to compliance that if the victim girl is traced within a short while and say in a period of one year, he shall solemnize marriage with her, but he shall not be bound by the statement beyond one year," Justice Dangre held.

27. Kabir Kala Manch Incited Hatred By Ridiculing Phrases Acche Din, Demonetization In Plays At Elgar Parishad: Bombay HC In Jyoti Jagtap Bail Order

Case Title: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 394

The Bombay High Court while refusing bail to accused Jyoti Jagtap under UAPA, held that text ridiculing phrases like 'Ram Mandir' and 'Acche Din' aimed at the democratically elected government in Kabir Kala Manch's plays at the Elgar Parishad event in 2017 incited hatred & passion and indicate a larger conspiracy.

The bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav also took exception to the mention of 'gomutra,' 'calling the PM an 'infant,' 'sanatan dharma,' 'atrocities of peshwas towards dalits' and 'atrocities of dalits in today's India' etc.

The court held NIA's contention regarding Jagtap having conspired, attempted, advocated and abated the commission of a terrorist act as prima facie true and said that her role will have to be seen as a part of conspiracy. Her name on the Elgar Parishad event invite, witness statements highlighted her active role in organising the event as also her association with active members of the banned CPI (Maoist).

28. Principle Of Res Judicata Applies To Children Claiming Property Through Parent Earlier Involved In Property Suit: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chandrakant Narayan Salvi v. Chandrakant Krushna Kumbhar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 395

The Bombay High Court upheld trial court's decision to dismiss a partition suit citing the principle of res judicata. The plaintiff had claimed the properties through his mother; however, the issue had been decided in an earlier suit for same properties filed by his mother.

Justice S. M. Modak dismissed the second appeal stating that there was no need to interfere in the judgments of the lower courts as there was no perversity in those findings and no substantial question of law is made out in the appeal.

29. IIT Admissions: Bombay HC Asks Institutes To Consider Allotting Vacant Seats To Aspirants Who Cleared 1st Counselling Round But Couldn't Deposit Fees

Case Title: Bharat Bhusan v. The Chairman, Joint Seat Allocation Authority and Ors. with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 396

In a plea by two candidates who were allotted seats in IITs in the first round of counselling but didn't pay fees due to technical glitch, the Bombay High Court asked the IITs to consider giving admission to the petitioners if seats are vacant in the 6th round.

The bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha considered that the petitioners are bright students who were allotted seats in the first rounds only due to their merits and stated –

"…if during the 6th round after all students have taken admission, if there are some seats vacant, the respondent No.2 may consider the petitioners for admission without impinging upon the rights of any other students."

30. Early Rehabilitation Primary Focus Under Slums Act, Unconscionable Delay In Redevelopment Ground To Remove Developer: Bombay HC

Case Title: Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 397

The Bombay High Court held that a slum dweller's right to shelter under Article 21 cannot be nullified by unconscionable delays caused by a developer and is a ground for its removal under section 13(2) of the Slums Act.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Yash Developers challenging its removal by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in a project wherein transit rents were not paid to at least 199 slum dwellers and development hadn't commenced for over 18 years. The CEO of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) had refused to remove the developer despite innumerable complaints after which the slum dwellers society's grievances were redressed by AGRC.

A single judge bench of Justice GS Kulkarni ruled that the CEO – SRA or AGRC are duty bound to hold the interest and early rehabilitation of slum dwellers as paramount while considering an application to remove the developer u/s 13 of the Act.

31. Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea By Uddhav Faction Against 'Diwali Pahat' To Be Conducted By Shinde Faction

Case Title: Mandar Pramod Vichare v. Thane Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 398

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a member of Uddhav Thackeray led faction challenging Thane Municipal Corporation's (TMC) permission to two members of CM Eknath Shinde faction to conduct Diwali Pahat, an annual musical event on the first day of Diwali.

The division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the petitioners did not have necessary permissions, so the question of favouritism by TMC towards Eknath Shinde faction does not arise.

The court observed after going through the documents submitted by the parties and the arguments made that the petitioner did not fulfil the procedural requirements for obtaining the permission. Hence, the court said that that the TMC did not act in a mala fide manner while denying the permission to Uddhav Thackeray faction.

32. Police Should Recognize & Assist NGOs When Possible Instead Of Suspecting Them: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Dashrath Arjun Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 399

The Bombay High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of fraudulently inducing people to donate to his NGO 'The Little Shine Foundation', observed that the police must uphold services of NGOs and assist them if possible.

Justice Bharti Dangre in her order observed, "it is also necessary for the Police Department, which is an important organ of the State Government, to recognize and uphold the services carried out by such NGOs and, if possible, to assist them in taking their ventures further, as there are several areas where the State machinery is unable to reach".

The court said that instead of "moving the needle of suspicion" to NGOs widely engaged in social service and helping weaker sections of the society, focus should be on the good deeds done by such NGOs.

33. Financial Benefits To Assessee Can't Be A Ground To Levy Interest Without A Statutory Provision: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 400

The Bombay High Court ruled that penalty or interest on additional customs duty (CVD) and special additional duty of customs (SAD), or surcharge, which is not connected to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed in the absence of an explicit substantive provision.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor observed that there was no substantive provision which obligated the assessee to pay interest or penalty on CVD or SAD, leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or on the surcharge leviable under the Finance Act, 2000.

The Court held that when penalty is imposed by way of additional tax, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition of the same. The bench added that the Settlement Commission cannot pass an order beyond the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the fact that the assessee derived financial benefits cannot be a ground to order payment of interest in the absence of any statutory provision.

34. IO Duty Bound To Subject Accused To Mental Examination Immediately After Arrest In Appropriate Cases: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

The Bombay High Court recently observed that that the investigating officer has a duty to have the accused examined for mental issues immediately after apprehension, if he comes to know that there is some doubt about the soundness of mind of the accused.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind N. Jadhav acquitted the appellant in a criminal appeal against his murder conviction observing that there was a reasonable doubt to the sanity of the appellant and the prosecution had failed to discharge the same. The court stated in its order, "once PW-7 – IO became aware of the fact after apprehending the Appellant that he was mentally retarded, it was his lawful duty to subject the Appellant to medical examination and place the evidence of such medical examination before the learned Trial Court".

35. Bombay High Court Dismisses Developers' Pleas Against Levy Of ₹800 Crores Aggregate Development Charges

Case Title: Shivaji Nagar Rahivashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

The Bombay High Court has held that developers undertaking redevelopment on state owned land wouldn't be exempt from paying Development Charges under Sections 124A & F of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

Development charges are imposed to provide public amenities and for the improvement of the area. Only planning authorities undertaking such development would be exempt from such charges under the provision, the court held.

The order passed by Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata stated –

"In our view, Section 124F has to be read ejusdem generis with remaining part of Section 124F, vesting, control, possession as well as, in view of the fact that the exemption is only granted for the development undertaken by the Central or the State Government or Local Authorities and not by private parties. "

36. Govt Servant Turning Hostile In Criminal Trial Does Not Amount To Misconduct, May Be Unethical: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held that a government servant turning hostile in a criminal trial may be unethical, but it does not amount to misconduct capable of being punished.

"Not standing by the statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. during his testimony during trial could possibly be construed as an unethical act not expected of an ideal government servant .... The same, however, would not amount to misconduct capable of being subjected to punishment for ensuring discipline amongst the organization," said the court.

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Sandeep V. Marne further observed that the disciplinary authority is not an expert to gauge the factors leading to hostility of the witness and perjury can only be established by the Sessions Court and not in a disciplinary inquiry.

The court clarified that appointing authority can proceed against the employee departmentally for turning hostile in a criminal trial based on conviction under Section 191 IPC, without conducting any departmental inquiry.

37. Subleasing Of Containers; Deemed Sale, Service Tax Not Applicable; Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nayana Premji Savala v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

The Bombay High Court has ruled that service tax would be applicable on transfer of goods only in cases where there is no "transfer of right to use" the said goods.

The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and A. S. Doctor ruled that in view of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, transfer of right to use goods is a deemed sale, which is subject to Sales Tax/VAT. The Court added that Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution does not distinguish between an owner or a lessor of the goods. Thus, the bench ruled that lease of goods for valuable consideration on a "transfer of right to use" basis is a deemed sale, even if the transferor is not the owner of the said goods.

38. Appeals Against Ex-Parte Orders Should Not Be Encouraged, Defendant Can Always Approach Single Judge: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

The Bombay High Court in an order on a commercial appeal deprecated the practice of filing appeal against ex parte orders and stated that there are inbuilt safeguards in such orders which facilitate the defendants to approach the Single Judge, who passed the order, to vacate, modify or limit the same.

The division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse said that the appeal court cannot reverse findings of the single Judge based on material that was never placed before the single Judge barring the most exceptional circumstances.

The court also opined that a substantive application by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC is not mandatory to have a without notice order set aside.

39. Theft can be considered a 'violent attack' under section 123 of the Railways Act if passenger got injured while attempting to catch phone snatcher: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Narendra S/o Chuhadram Sharma v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

The Bombay High Court held that theft can be considered a 'violent attack' under Section 123(c)(1)(ii) of the Railways Act, even if it's not specifically mentioned under the 'untoward incident' definition, in a situation where the passenger falls down and gets injured while running after a thief in a train.

The court said that any ordinary normal person's reaction would be to run towards the thief and try to recover the mobile if someone suddenly snatches the mobile in a train. If he gets injured while doing so it cannot be considered self-inflicted injury as there is no intention to harm oneself.

40. Obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation' in accident cases even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

The Bombay High Court held that nit-picking and awarding meagre amounts of compensation to accident victims, unmindful of their deep mental and emotional scars, is an affront of the injured victim while awarding compensation of more than Rs 1 crore to a claimant, who sustained multiple injuries in a road accident in 2004.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated that there is no embargo in awarding compensation more than that claimed by the Claimant. It is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation', even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. Court observed that paraplegia not only impairs the physical, mental, social and financial wellbeing of a married victim but also impacts the lives of his spouse who inevitably becomes main caregiver, children and infirm parents.

41. Letter To Competent Authority Under Maha Industrial Development Act Sufficient to Refer Compensation Enhancement Claim For Land Acquisition: Bombay High Court

Case title – Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

The Bombay High Court held that written applications for enhancement of compensation for land acquisition are sufficient to prove that appellants were seeking enhancement.

Justice S. G. Dige of the Aurangabad bench further observed that Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) requires written application for reference to court for enhancement of compensation, but it does not prescribe a form of petition.

42. Labelling Husband As 'Alcoholic', 'Womaniser' Without Substance Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court

Case title – Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar,

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

The Bombay High Court held that a wife making unsubstantiated allegations against her husband in a court labelling him as an 'alcoholic' and a 'womanizer' amounts to cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/wife challenging family court's decision to grant divorce decree to her husband observing that no evidence was produced by the wife to prove her allegations.

43. Execution Of Agreement, In Bid Document As Condition Precedent; Failure To Execute, Not A Concluded Contract: Bombay High Court

Case title: Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

The Bombay High Court ruled that where reference to a future contract is made in the tender documents and in the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to a successful bidder, in such terms which shows that the parties do not intend to be bound until the said contract is signed between them, there is no concluded contract between them which can be specifically enforced.

The Division Bench of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata added that the terms and conditions of the contract, which were not agreed by and between the parties, cannot be drafted by the Court or the arbitrator for incorporating them in the agreement. The Court ruled that it cannot re-write a contract or suggest any conditions of a contract to be incorporated, by passing an order against the parties.

44. Deadly Assault On Sleeping Man After A Fight Not Culpable Homicide But Murder: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

The Bombay High Court held that killing a person in his sleep hours after a fight would be a case of murder punishable under section 302 of the IPC, and not culpable homicide, and refused to set aside the murder conviction of a truck cleaner.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh upheld the life sentence awarded to Mittu Pareda by a Sessions court in 2013. Pareda killed his acquaintance with a log of wood in his sleep, hours after the deceased fought with him and accused him of stealing his phone.

45. Consultation With Federal Society Prerequisite For Removal Of Committee Member Under Section 78 Of Cooperative Societies Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kusum Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State Minister for Co-operation, Department of Co-operation and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

The Bombay High Court held that consultation with the federal society to which a co-operative society is officiated is mandatory before the registrar can remove any committee or the member of the society if the acts of the committee or its members are against the interest of the co-operative society.

Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that while the federal society's opinion is not binding, it still must be sought by the Deputy Registrar under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

46. Clerk Fighting Employment Dispute For Over 8 Years Dies, Bombay High Court Directs All Pensionary Benefits

Case Title: Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

The Bombay High Court directed Hingoli Zilla Parishad to grant all pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased clerk even though the case challenging his dismissal was pending in the Labour Court.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad Bench also granted continuity in service to the petitioner during the period between his dismissal and reinstatement to service.

The clerk was dismissed from service over 10 years ago and was fighting the dispute for over 8 years. He died while his writ petition was pending in the High Court.

47. Chhath Pooja 2022: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Order Revoking Permission To Group Backed By NCP Leader

Case Title: Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

The Bombay High Court quashed BMC's decision to revoke the permission granted to a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) backed organisation to hold Chhath Pooja in Ghatkopar, Mumbai on October 30-31^st. The court also reversed the BMC's decision granting permission to another charitable organisation Atal Samajik Sanskruti Seva Pratisthan, backed by BJP.

A division bench of Justices N. J. Jamadar and Gauri Godse said that the permission granted by BMC to Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal, an organisation led by NCP Corporator Rakhee Jadhav, was prior in time. Hence, the subsequent permission granted to Atal could not sustain.

48. Married Woman Being Asked To Do Household Work Does Not Mean She Is Treated Like Maid Servant: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

The Bombay High Court held that a married woman being asked to do household work does not mean that she is being treated like a maid servant. The court also observed that without description of alleged acts of the husband and in-laws, it cannot be determined whether they committed cruelty towards the wife.

"Mere use of the word harassment "mentally and physically" are not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC", a division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rajesh S. Patil of the Aurangabad bench observed while dealing with an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR filed by a woman against her husband and his family members.

49. Juvenile Being Tried As Adult No Bar To Grant Of Bail U/S 12 JJ Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a juvenile in conflict with law despite being tried as an adult would be entitled to special parameters for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Merely because, he is directed to be tried as an adult, he cannot be denied the benefit of Section 12, Justice Bharati Dangre said in her order granting bail to a 17-year-old murder accused.

50. Bombay HC Upholds Order Striking Off Father's Defence For Depriving Mother Of Visitation Rights

Case Title: Shardul Shamprasad Dev v. Manjiri Shardul Dev

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

Bombay High Court upheld a district court's order striking off his defence in a matrimonial dispute. The father was violating the visitation order stating that the child did not want to meet his mother. He filed a writ petition challenging the order striking off his defence before the High Court.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that even after the order striking off the defence of the petitioner, he defaulted on granting visitation rights to the mother. The court said that while the order to strike off defence is a drastic measure to be avoided by the courts, in the present case the district court has recorded that petitioner has wilfully disobeyed district court's order.

51. Bombay High Court Directs Son, Daughter-In-Law To Vacate Their 88-Yr-Old Mother's Flat, Pay Monthly Maintenance

Case Title: Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

The Bombay High Court upheld an order of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal (tribunal) directing a man to pay monthly maintenance as well as handover a flat to his 88-year-old mother.

The court, in a writ petition challenging the tribunal's order, held that the petitioners had no legal right to the flat and they cannot evict the mother to take exclusive advantage of the same.

The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha however, reduced the maintenance amount as it was not in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (Act).

52. Bombay High Court Grants Caste Certificate Using Native Place's Name & Language

Case Title: Surendra Murlidhar Kopulwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

The Bombay High Court recently granted a Scheduled Tribe certificate to an Amravati resident based on pre-constitutional entries mentioning his native place's name instead of the name of his caste at various places.

A bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare set aside the caste scrutiny committee's order that had cited confusion in the petitioner's documents while invalidating his caste certificate. While the petitioner claimed to be from the 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe, his ancestors' documents stated their caste as being 'Telangi,' 'Telgu' and 'Telgu Manwar.'

However, the Bombay High Court said there was no confusion as the Mennewar's were mainly found in Telangana and spoke Telugu.

53. Death Is The Greatest Equalizer, State Bound To Provide Reasonable Facilities For Burial & Cremation, There Must Be No Discrimination: Bombay HC

Case Title: Muzaffar Manzoor Kadri v. State Govt. of Goa and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

The Bombay High Court directed the Public Works Department, the Margao Municipal Council and Goa State Urban Development Agency (GSUDA) to construct a burial ground for the Muslim community in Sonsodo locality, within 6 months.

This order was passed in a PIL highlighting that the land was acquired for the purpose of constructing the kabristan 11 years ago but there has been no progress in the construction and development of the kabristan since then.

A division bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande of the Goa bench observed that the authorities have a duty to provide cemeteries, burial grounds, electrical crematorium etc. to the public.

54. Police Station Not a Prohibited Place Under Official Secrets Act: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Booked For Shooting Video Inside PS

Case Title: Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

The Bombay High Court recently said that the definition of 'prohibited place' in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is exhaustive but police station has not been included as one of the establishments or places under it.

Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki Menezes of the Nagpur bench made the observation while quashing an FIR in July this year against a man, who was booked under Section 3 of the Act for recording a video inside a police station in 2018.

55. 'Deceptively Similar Design': Bombay High Court Halts Sale of Polycab Wizzy After Atomberg Alleges Infringement

Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Polycab India Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

The Bombay High Court restrained a leading electrical appliance manufacturer Polycab India Ltd. from marketing its fan in an ex parte order stating that prima facie it has identical design as that of 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'.

Justice R. I. Chagla granted temporary injunction in favour of the Mumbai based fan manufacturer Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in a commercial IPR suit stating that Polycab has reproduced the overall design, shape, configuration, and get-up of Atomberg's Renesa Ceiling Fan.

56. Bombay High Court Expresses Alarm At Over 2 Lakh Encroachments On Grazing Lands, Asks State To Prepare Roadmap

Case Title: High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

The Bombay High Court in a suo moto PIL expressed alarm on being informed by the state government that there are 2,22,153 illegal constructions on government owned Gairan lands in the state and directed the state government to ensure that no further encroachments on such lands occur.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar noted that the Forest Department's affidavit does not provide the basis on which the 12,652 structures were regularized. Further, it does not indicate what steps the state government is contemplating to remove the 2,22,153 encroachments and free 10,089 hectares of land. The court asked the state government to file another affidavit answering these questions.

Other developments

1. Direct Correlation Between Incinerator's Toxic Gases And Rising TB Cases, Shift Waste Plant: Govandi Residents To Bombay High Court

Case Title: SMS Envoclean Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

A civic action society in a case pending before the Bombay High Court has claimed that there is a direct correlation between the emission of toxic gases from a biomedical waste treatment plant's incinerator at Govandi and the annual figure of about 5000 tuberculosis cases in the area.

2. Six Judicial Officers Appointed As Additional Judges Of Bombay High Court

The Centre issued a notification for appointment of six judicial officers as additional judges of the Bombay High Court for a period of two years. The Bombay HC will now function with a strength of 67 judges. Its sanctioned strength is 94.

The new judges are -

1. Sanjay Anandrao Deshmukh

2. Yanshivraj Gopichand Khobragade

3. Mahendra Wadhumal Chandwani

4. Abhay Sopanrao Waghwase

5 Ravindra Madhusudan Joshi.

6. Vrushali Vijay Joshi

3. Plea In Bombay High Court Seeks Probe Against Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde, Alleges Crores Spent For Dussehra Rally

A petition has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking probe against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and others for allegedly spending "Rs. 10 crore or more" for holding Dussehra rally at the MMRDA grounds. The petitioner Deepak Jagdev claimed that the under-construction Samruddhi Mahamarg expressway from Mumbai to Nagpur was used to bring supporters of the rally to Mumbai, by violating traffic rules and without permission from MSRTC.

4. Motor Vehicles Act: MACT Bar Association Challenges Removal Of No-Fault Liability, Introduction Of Limitation Period Etc; Bombay HC Seeks Centre's Response

Case Title: Bar Association of MACT, Mumbai v. Union of India and Ors.

A public interest litigation filed before the Bombay High Court has challenged recent amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act) which removes the provisions of 'No fault liability', introduces limitation on making claims, and limits third party liability for insurance companies.

The petition, filed through Advocate Yatin Malvankar, challenges the amendments made by the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019 and rules claiming that it was passed without considering the affected sections of the society.

5. PIL In Bombay High Court Seeks CBI, ED Probe Into Ex-Maha CM Uddhav Thackeray's Wealth

Case Title: Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

A PIL has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a CBI and ED investigation into the wealth of ex-Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray, his wife Rashmi and two sons Aditya and Tejas.

The petition raises questions regarding land plots given by the Maharashtra Government owned CIDCO for trust Prabodhan Prakashan (Owner and publishers of Saamna newspaper).

The plea states that during the Covid-19 lockdown, Thackeray's company Prabodhan Prakashan Pvt. Ltd showed "brilliant performance" of Rs 42 crore turnover and Rs 11.5 crore profit. The petitioners call this a "clear case" of black money being converted to white money.

The petitioner has a "hunch" that BJP leader Kirit Somaiya or both agencies must have "huge information" and links pertaining to Thackerays.

6. "Being Targeted": NCP Leader Approaches Bombay High Court Against Revocation of Chhath Pooja Permission By BMC

A petition was filed by a corporator of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) against revocation of permission for their 'Chhath Pooja' in Ghatkopar, Mumbai.

The petitioner alleged that while their permission was cancelled, the Municipal Corporation granted permission to another charitable organisation Atal Samajik Sanskruti Seva Pratisthan which allegedly supports the ruling BJP. They sought a stay on the permission granted to the second organisation.

However, the division bench headed by Justice RD Dhanuka orally refused an immediate stay but granted the petitioners liberty to approach the vacation bench for relief. The event is set for October 30, 2022.

7. Long Court Vacations Violate Litigants' Fundamental Rights, Must Be Abandoned: Plea In Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court Of Bombay & Ors.

A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court challenged the long vacations of the court claiming that it is a violation of fundamental rights of litigants. The plea says courts during the vacations function with insufficient number of judges to hear the urgent cases.

The petitioner Sabina Lakdawala has sought a declaration that the long court vacations during Diwali, Christmas, and summer for more than 70 days in total is a violation of fundamental rights and should be brought to an end.

8. Bombay High Court Directs Lower Courts To Comply With SC, HC Orders & Processes Based On E-Copies; Amends Civil & Criminal Manual

The Bombay High Court amended the Civil Manual, 1986 and Criminal Manual 1980 directing compliance of Supreme Court and Bombay High court orders based on the e-copies communicated through the Fast And Secure Transmission of Electronics Records (FASTER) system without insisting on a hard copy of the same.