'Mandate Of Day-To-Day Trial U/S 309 CrPC Is Thrown To The Wind': Bombay High Court Flags 'Unhealthy Practice' Of Trial Courts

The Bombay High Court while ordering a 'retrial' in a rape case, noted the 'alarming state of affairs' of most criminal trials, wherein the courts have failed to conduct a 'day-to-day' trial and therefore, issued guidelines for the lower courts to strictly adhere to section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498Nominal IndexMohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan, 2024 LiveLaw...

Unless Recipient Chooses To Forward Message On WhatsApp, They Cannot Be Held Liable For Defamation: Bombay High Court

A WhatsApp message is encrypted end to end and it can only be read by the person, who received it unless the recipient chooses to forward the message, thus in such a situation a sender cannot be booked for defaming a person in society, the Bombay High Court held recently. For the 'illegal arrest' of the applicant, the High Court ordered the Investigating Officer (IO) to pay Rs 2 lakhs and...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 28 - November 03, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 559 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 572Nominal Index:M/s BK Polimex India Private Limited vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 559 Deepak Deshmukh vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 560Maruti Krishana Naik & Ors. vs. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & Anr.,2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 561Andreas Stihl Private Limited versus The Joint Commissioner of State Tax &...

Bombay High Court Questions ECI's Decision To Reject Nomination Papers Of Candidates Across State For Being Filed After 11 AM

The Bombay High Court on Monday sought to know from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as to on what grounds it rejected the nominations of various candidates across Maharashtra, who filed their papers after 11 AM of October 30 for the upcoming State Assembly Elections.A vacation bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somasekhar Sundaresan also ordered the ECI to furnish a list of...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bombay High Court: A single Judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed Tata Steel's writ petition. It held that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the employment status of canteen workers, as the nature of the employer-employee relationship was itself disputed. The court ruled that under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair...

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

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare upheld the Labour Court's decision to award monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to a casual laborer whose services were terminated without following due process. The court emphasized that while termination without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, reinstatement is not...

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

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

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

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