Home
/

Round Ups
/

Weekly
/
Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up:...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: June 10, 2024 To June 16, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

20 Jun 2024 11:30 AM GMT

Reports/Judgments

"Right To Decent Last Rites": High Court Directs Municipal Commissioner To Personally Address Issue Of Inadequate Burial Grounds In Mumbai

Case Title: Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 284

The Bombay High Court directed the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to personally look into the issue of inadequate burial grounds in Mumbai and take necessary steps to identify and acquire new burial plots.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar expressed disapproval over the Municipal Corporation's lack of action, emphasizing the importance of the right to a decent burial.

“Such callousness on the part of the authorities cannot be appreciated. Right of dead to be given a decent and respectful last rites is as important as any other right available when he is alive. Moreover, it is the statutory duty and obligation cast on The Municipal Corporation to provide adequate place for burial of the dead. The authorities of the Municipal Corporation, thus, cannot shirk their shoulders away from such statutory responsibility”, the court stated.

The court was dealing with a PIL regarding paucity of space for adequate burial grounds in the city.

Record Indicates They Conspired To Transform India Into Islamic Country: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Alleged PFI Members

Case Title: Razi Ahmed Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 285

The Bombay High Court denied bail to three alleged members of the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) booked for allegedly conspiring to “overawe the Government by use of criminal force” and “transform India into an Islamic country by 2047”.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak rejected the appeals filed by three accused against the orders of the Special Judge, Nashik, which had previously rejected their bail applications.

“Record of investigation indicates that, the Appellants in connivance with other Accused persons conspired to overawe the Government by use of criminal force. The first information report is self-eloquent. There is more than sufficient material available on record in the form of statements of witnesses and the documents seized from the electronic devices of the Accused persons that, they indulged into activity of inciting like minded people to join them to overawe the Government by use of criminal force. They also conspired to transform India into an Islamic country by 2047. They are not only propagators but actively intending to implement the Vision-2047 document of their organization”, the court observed.

Abortion Can Be Allowed Where Continuing Pregnancy Would Cause Grave Mental Injury: Bombay High Court

Case Title: XYZ v. The Dean of BJ, Government Medical College and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

The Bombay High Court held that abortion can be allowed in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman.

The division bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sudaresan held that such allowance cannot be limited to pregnancy emanating from sexual assault.

The 19 years old petitioner had approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate her 25-weeks pregnancy which had resulted from a consensual relationship.

Prima Facie Unauthorised Use Of Karan Johar's Name: Bombay High Court Restrains Release Of Film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar"

Case Title: Karan Johar v. IndiaPride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

The Bombay High Court restrained the release of the upcoming film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”, and any promotional material finding a strong prima facie case that the makers have made unauthorised use of filmmaker Karan Johar's name and personality.

The court also restrained the makers from using Johar's name or any other attributes or reference to the name “Karan Johar” in any manner, in the title of the film or in the promotion directly or indirectly including but not limited to all promotional materials etc. which is intended to be sold, promoted or otherwise distributed in relation to the film.

Justice RI Chagla said in his order, “In my view a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff to protect his personality rights which are vested in him considering that he has the status of celebrity as apparent from several blockbuster films which he has directed and produced. There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has played a role in transforming the Bollywood film industry and launched careers of several successful actors. I have to doubt that prima facie the subject film is a direct reference to the plaintiff and makes unauthorised use of plaintiff's name.”

The court observed that the use of Karan Johar's name makes it evident that the makers are using the personality of Karan Johar.

“The defendants are creating confusion in the minds of the public at large that it is associated with him as the general public will immediately identify and associate the use of the name “Karan” and “Johar” together in the title of the said film solely with the Plaintiff upon becoming aware of the title of the said film”, the court stated.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay BMCs Permissions For Animal Sacrifice At Shops And Markets On Bakrid

Case Title: Jiv Maitri Trust v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 288

The Bombay High Court declined to stay the implementation of a circular issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) permitting animal sacrifices at 67 private meat shops and 47 municipal markets during Bakrid on June 17, 2024.

A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata, while dealing with petitions seeking urgent stay on the BMC circular, noted that the petitioners mentioned the matter and sought urgent hearing through a praecipe (a written request for an urgent hearing).

The court noted that the praecipe does not seek any interim relief and simply seeks circulation of matter for urgent hearing. The court did not find this method appropriate for seeking relief. Oral application for interim relief cannot be entertained, the court said.

Blatant Contravention Of Provisions For Maintaining Case Diary: Bombay High Court Seizes Case Diary From Police, Directs DGP To Take Remedial Action

Case Title: Gopal C. Mehta & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

Taking serious note of “blatant contraventions of the Circulars issued by the DGPMS as well as other statutory requirements” for maintenance of case diaries by the police, the Bombay High Court seized the improperly maintained case diary of a criminal investigation from the police and sent it to the DGP for remedial action.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale said that the investigating officer in the case had failed to comply with Section 172(1-B) of the CrPC and the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State (DGPMS) on February 12, 2024. The circular mandates police officers to maintain case diaries in the form of bound and numbered pages as per legal provisions.

“We direct the D.G.P.M.S. to take appropriate remedial action in this regard and to ensure strict compliance at least of its own Circulars by all the Police Officers in the State”, the court directed.

Substituting Legal Representative Of Deceased Employee By Another For Compassionate Appointment Is legal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kalpana and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 290

A full bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Anil S. Kilor, Anil L. Pansare and M.W.Chandwani, JJ., while answering the questions of law in the case of Kalpana and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, held that the prohibition on substituting name of one legal representative of deceased employee for compassionate appointment, by another legal representative is arbitrary & irrational.

The court observed that if the application submitted by one of the family members has already resulted in an order of appointment in favour of such an applicant, at that stage, substitution may not be permitted. However, where the application seeking appointment on compassionate basis is still pending consideration and if any application for substitution of name in place of the former one is rejected, it would amount to denial of appointment on compassionate ground contrary to the policy.

Bombay High Court Orders Bank of Baroda To Refund Rs 76 Lakh, Says Account Holder Not Liable For Unauthorized Transactions Due To Third Party Breach

Case Title: Jaiprakash Kulkarni v. The Banking Ombudsman and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 291

The Bombay High Court directed the Bank of Baroda to refund Rs. 76,90,017 to a company and its director who lost the amount in a cyber fraud incident involving unauthorized electronic banking transactions for which no OTP was sent.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition seeking refund of the amount observing –

“both as per the RBI Circular and the said Policy of Respondent No.2 (bank), the liability of the Petitioners in respect of the said unauthorized transactions would be zero as the unauthorized transactions have taken place due to a third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with Respondent No.2 nor with the Petitioners...In these circumstances, as per the RBI Circular and as per the Policy of Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount from Respondent No.2.”

Bombay High Court Allows Slaughtering Of Animals For Bakri Eid In Protected Area Around Vishalgad Fort

Case Title: Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 292

The Bombay High Court permitted the slaughtering of animals for the festival of Bakri Eid on June 17, 2024, in the protected area around the Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur District.

A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla granted interim relief to petitioners in petitions challenging the ban on animal slaughter in the area issued by various authorities, including the Director of Archaeology and Museums, Bombay, the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur.

“We are of the opinion that at least for the festival of Bakri Eid which is on 17th June 2024, and Urus which is till 21st June 2024, the slaughtering of animals by the Petitioners can be permitted. However, we make it clear that the actual killing or sacrifices of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises at Gat No. 19 which is a private land owned by Shri Mubarak Usman Mujawar. The killing of animals and birds certainly should not be done in an open place or in a public place”, the court held.

The court said that interpreting the entire 333-acre area as a protected monument, which would prevent the residents within this area from cooking and consuming food, is absurd.

“It is not in dispute that in the protected area, namely, 333 acres 19 gunthas, there are about 575 people and about 107 families residing in Vishalgad…If we were to hold that the entire area of 333 acres and 19 gunthas was the “protected monument”, then under Rule 8(c), these 107 families, admittedly residing within the area of 333 acres 19 gunthas, would not be allowed either to cook or consume food. This would effectively mean that these 107 families would either have to starve or go outside their homes (beyond 333 acres 19 gunthas) and cook and consume their food. This interpretation would be absurd to say the least”, the court said.

Other Developments

Bombay High Court Orders Removal Of Actor Salman Khan's Name From Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Custodial Death Of Firing Accused

The Bombay High Court directed the removal of Bollywood actor Salman Khan's name from a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the custodial death of Anuj Thapan, an accused in the case of firing outside Khan's residence.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Shyam Chandak emphasized that there were no allegations or relief sought against Khan in the petition and, therefore, his involvement was unnecessary.

Pune Porsche Accident | Bombay High Court Denies Urgent Relief To Minor's Aunt Seeking His Release From Custody

The Bombay High Court declined urgent relief for the minor accused in the Pune Porsche crash case while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by his paternal aunt, seeking his release claiming that he is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained in an observation home.

A division Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said that as the minor had been in the observation home since May 21, 2024, there was no urgent need for an interim order, and posted the matter on June 20, 2024.

The petition contends that the juvenile had been unlawfully taken from the custody of his grandfather, who was initially responsible for him following the grant of bail, and placed in an observation home without proper review of the earlier order.