Nominal Index [Citations 378 – 389]

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

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

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

4. Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

5. Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. [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."

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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".

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.