Nominal Index [Citation 418 – 427]

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

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

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

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

5. Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

6. The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

7. Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

8. Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

9. Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

10. Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

Reports/Judgments

1. 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 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. "If the petitioners are not maintaining respondent no.3-mother and are creating a nuisance and emotional disturbances to her, the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated", the court stated.

The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha 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).

2. 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 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. The bench further observed that the scrutiny committee had failed to take vital information into consideration when it decided the petitioner's case. It was referring to the fact that all pre-constitutional entries sufficiently supported his claim of belonging to the Manewar ST.

3. State Bound To Provide Reasonable Facilities For Burial & Cremation, There Must Be No Discrimination: Bombay High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

The Bombay High Court observed that the state and local authorities have a duty to provide cemeteries, burial grounds, electrical crematorium etc. to the public.

"there is a duty cast upon the local authorities and the State to provide reasonable facilities for the burial and cremation of the departed. These are primary duties. These are essential duties. These duties cannot be delayed or denied. At least in discharging these duties, there ought to be no red tape or sustained inaction. In particular, there ought to be not even a hint of discrimination", Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande of the Goa bench held.

4. 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 observed 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 observed this while quashing an FIR against a man who was booked under Section 3 of the Act for recording a video inside a police station in 2018.

5. Misled By Claimant's Counsel, Bombay High Court Apologises To MACT Assistant Registrar For Making Strong Remarks

Case Title: Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

The Bombay High Court apologised for its strong remarks against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pune and said that the remarks will be expunged from the record after realising that it was misled by a claimant's advocate.

A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Gauri V Godse on September 22 and October 14, 2022, had pulled up the Registrar MACT for failure to remit Rs. 30 lakh compensation to the claimant-son for 2.5 years.

However, on October 19 the bench learned that an application for remittance was made only on October 10, 2022. It therefore commented on the "poor" conduct of the law firm, for the manner in which the case was handled.

6. Child Raised In Orphanage Cannot Be Declared As "Orphan" Under JJ Act If Biological Parents Are Alive: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

The Bombay High Court held that children though brought up in an orphanage cannot be declared as 'orphans' as defined under Section 2(42) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Act, 2015 if their biological parents are alive.

The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala & RN Laddha however asked the Committee under the JJ Act to decide if such children, the petitioners, can be declared as 'abandoned children' under section 2(1) of the Act.

7. Bombay High Court Asks Legal Services Authority To Review Pending Cases Where Lawyers Are Not Appointed Despite Prisoners' Requests

Case Title: Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

The Bombay High Court asked its Legal Services Authority to review pending cases where lawyers have not been appointed despite prisoners' requests so that appeals can be filed expeditiously.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was dealing with an interim application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against applicant's conviction. The Legal Services Authority had kept his request for appointment of advocate pending for more than two years.

8. Maharashtra Minor Mineral Rules | Prior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Quarry Permits For Temporary Extraction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

The Bombay High Court held that quarry permits for extraction and removal of minor minerals from a specified area for a temporary period do not require prior submission of environmental clearance certificate under Rule 59 of Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (2013 Rules).

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside directions by the State Government which required prior submission of environment clearance certificate for grant of quarry permits despite there being no such requirement in the 2013 Rules. The court stated that the 2013 rules will prevail over executive instructions of the government.

9. Arbitration,Invoked Without Authority, The Defect Can't Be Ratified With Fresh BoardResolution: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

The Bombay High Court ruled that the issue whether the arbitration was invoked and the Statement of Claim was filed, by a person duly authorized by the claimant, goes to the root of the matter, with respect to which the arbitral tribunal may make a final arbitral award. Thus, the Court held that the order passed by the arbitral tribunal, granting a choice to the claimant to prove the board resolution passed by it, appointing its authorized representative, or to pass a fresh board resolution, is an interim award which is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice C.V. Bhadang held that once the arbitral tribunal had ruled that the specified person had no authority to invoke arbitration and depose on behalf of the claimant, in view of the fact that the alleged board resolution was not proved by it as valid, the tribunal could not have ruled that the said defect was rectifiable. The Court added that ratification can only be of an act which is otherwise valid.

10. Uttar Pradesh Migrant Not Entitled To Benefits Meant For OBC Candidates In Maharashtra: High Court

Case Title: Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a migrant from Uttar Pradesh is not entitled to any benefits meant for OBC candidates in Maharashtra, and upheld the invalidation of a Nationalist Congress Party candidate for BMC Naziya Ansari's caste certificate.

"She being a migrant after the deemed date was not entitled to contest elections in Maharashtra," the bench said. The court also found that Ansari had produced "fabricated documents" and was guilty of defrauding the court, and therefore imposed cost of Rs. 50,000.

Other Developments

1. Octogenarian Lawyer Approaches Bombay HC Seeking Permission To Translate Devout Gandhian's Autobiography

An 83-year-old lawyer approached the Bombay High Court seeking license to translate and publish the autobiography of devout Gandhian - Madeleine Slade also known as Mira Behn.

Lawyer Anilkumar Karkhanis said he intended to publish the book titled "The Spirit's Pilgrimage" in Marathi, not for any commercial gain but in public interest. He has approached the court under section 32 of the Copyright Act 1957 for permission as the original publishers are untraceable.

The bench subsequently ordered a notice to be issue in the Copyright Journal as well as in two newspapers. The matter will now be listed for further consideration on November 15, 2022.

2. Bombay High Court Likely To Get Land For New Building At Bandra Soon, All Legal Hurdles Cleared: Chief Minister Eknath Shinde

Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on said that all legal issues have been cleared and a decision has been taken for a new building for the Bombay High Court at the Bandra Kurla Complex.

"We have discussed the land allotment issue at BKC, which I think is a requirement as well. Therefore, we have taken a decision based on whatever was sought. That's all that I can say on this occasion," said Shinde.

Shinde was speaking at an event at the Maharashtra Raj Bhavan for felicitation of Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit by Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari.