Nominal Index Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313 to 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367 1. Jagdish Lahu Badhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313 2. Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 314 3. Sunil Vishnu Mukane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 315 4. ...
Nominal Index
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313 to 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
1. Jagdish Lahu Badhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
2. Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
3. Sunil Vishnu Mukane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
4. Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax & Anr. with 11 connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
5. Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
6. Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
7. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
8. Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
9. Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
10. Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
11. Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
12. Sayaji Dashrath Kawade v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
13. Priya Kedar Gokhale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
14. Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
15. Sunita and Ors v. Sandipan Dyanoba Tathapare and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
16. Vikas Ramji Yadav Through Ramji Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
17. Kishor Manohar Kamble and Anr v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
18. Swanath Foundation v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
19. Sunil Gupta and Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
20. Agisilaos Demetriades v. The Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
21. Arun Krishnachandra Goswami v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
22. Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
23. Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
24. Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
25. Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
26. Kaalka Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
27. Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
28. Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
29. Armaan Kohli v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
30. Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
31. R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
32. Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
33. M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
34. Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
35. The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
36. Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
37. Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
38. The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
39. Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
40. Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
41. Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
42. M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
43. Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
44. Ajaz Mohammad Shaf Khan v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
45. Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Anr. v. The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
46. Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
47. Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
48. Chetan Vyas v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
49. Pawan Shamsundar Sarda and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
50. All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
51. High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
52. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
53. Faiyyaz Mullaji v. Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
54. Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 3662022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
55. Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
Reports
1. Registrar Didn't Act Independently: Bombay HC Sets Aside Govt Order Removing NCP Members From Jalgaon Milk Union's Managing Committee
Case title – Jagdish Lahu Badhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside an order removing 14 members of elected managing committee of the Jalgaon Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.
"DDR has passed the impugned order not only in the absence of any ground or by resorting to any enquiry by following the principles of natural justice but even has passed it mala fide with an ulterior motive to oblige the Government", the court observed.
2. Bombay High Court Directs CBIC To Issue Clarification Regarding Distribution/ Reporting Of ISD Credit
Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification in relation to the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.
The Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Gauri Godse was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.
3. Bombay High Court Overturns Dacoity Conviction Citing Lapses In Arrangement Of Test Identification Parade By The Police
Case title: Sunil Vishnu Mukane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
The Bombay High Court overturned conviction of four accused in a dacoity case observing that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable due to irregularities in arranging the test identification parade.
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal held "In this particular case in view of these infirmities, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. There are no other incriminating circumstances against the appellants".
The court noted the strong possibility that the prosecution witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused before the test identification parade. The prosecution has to rule out that possibility, which was not done. Further the prosecution didn't prove that the witnesses didn't see the dummies brought by the police for the identification. "If the witnesses had an opportunity to see the dummies before the test identification parade; then it was very easy to identity the accused", the court observed.
The court further observed that sixteen dummies were asked to take part in one single identification parade for four accused. Proper procedure stipulates six dummies per accused and no more than two accused in a single identification parade.
4. SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Title: Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax & Anr. with 11 connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The Bombay High Court held that the dues of a secured creditor would rank superior to the dues of a state government department on sale of secured asset.
A full bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice N. J. Jamadar answered seven questions of law related to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDDB Act).
The court further held that Chapter IV-A of SARFAESI Act is prospective and will apply from the date it was brought into force, i.e., 24th January 2020.
The court held that a secured creditor cannot invoke Section 31B of the RDDB Act to claim priority if it is disabled from obtaining 'priority' under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act for want of CERSAI registration.
The court overruled para 21 of division bench decision in ASREC (India) Limited v. State of Maharashtra. ASREC and paragraph 35 of the division bench decision in SBI v. State of Maharashtra
The court held that the priority under RDDB Act and SARFAESI Act wouldn't apply if the immovable property of the defaulter is attached and proclamation issued in accordance with law before Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act or section 31B of the RDDB Act were enforced.
5. Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A 'Person Or Institution' Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
The Bombay High Court ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act does not include the application required to be filed under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act before the High Court for seeking appointment of arbitrator(s).
Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that a Commercial Court can never be regarded as a "person or institution" under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act, and that the term "any person or institution" would not include a Court exercising any judicial power.
6. Caste Certificate - Ordinary Residence Of Applicant Cannot Be Determined In A Summary Enquiry: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that the question of ordinary residence of a person for the purpose of verifying caste certificate cannot be determined without a Vigilance Cell inquiry and providing the person an opportunity to submit evidence.
The court held that the question whether an applicant is ordinary resident of the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authority is a question of fact and has to be decided by granting the applicant necessary opportunity to prove it.
The court further observed that Rule 14 of the 2012 Rules prohibits verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee when such caste certificate is issued to a migrant from another State. "A caste certificate issued to a claimant by an Authority other than one from the State of Maharashtra cannot be verified", the court stated.
7. Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court
Case title: Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde, Proprietor Creative Infotech
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Bombay High Court held that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied.
Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the opposite party's website, which included an arbitration agreement, was sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause between them.
8. [MP Mohan Delkar Suicide] Bombay High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator & 8 Others
Case Title: Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other authorities for allegedly abetting suicide of Mohan Delkar, seven times Member of Parliament (MP) of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
The court observed that to attract Section 120 (B) IPC, there must be positive material to show that the accused persons came together for hatching a conspiracy and effect was given to that conspiracy. There must a positive act for satisfying the word abetment in order to charge someone for abetment of suicide. However, the material in the FIR doesn't satisfy any of these requirements.
9. [MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court held that courts should refrain from interfering in results of examinations as judicial intervention affects all candidates and not just the parties seeking relief.
"Indeed, we would venture to suggest that except in the most exceptional circumstances, there should not be such interim interventions by a Court for the simple reason that allowing the benefit to even a single candidate (let alone 250) irredeemably alters the balance in regard to the other candidates who have managed to cross the qualifying threshold criteria", the court stated.
Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse dismissed three writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) order upholding the decision to delete certain questions from a recruitment exam conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC).
10. [Section 110A Customs Act] Owner Does Not Include Importer Of Goods: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
The Bombay High Court held that seized goods can only be provisionally released under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 in favour of the owner of the goods and no one else.
"The said section does not include or envisage release of goods provisionally in favour of an importer of goods much less does it envisage, a release in favour of 'any person', in addition to the owner as mentioned in Section 124 of the Act, who has been served a notice under the said section", the court held.
11. Bombay High Court Directs State To Conduct Public Prosecutor Exam In Marathi Also
Case Title: Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court directed the state government to conduct the exam for recruitment of public prosecutors in English as well as Marathi language.
The direction would not be applicable for the upcoming exam to be conducted by MPSC on 11th September but for subsequent examinations.
12. Morals & Ethics Can't Form Basis For Conviction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act, Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Mandatory: Bombay HC
Case Title: Sayaji Dashrath Kawade v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court held that a person cannot be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA) on the basis of morals and ethics. The basic requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice S. D. Kulkarni overturned the conviction in a criminal appeal observing –
"The corruption is spreading like cancer in our great nation. The disease of the corruption has been with us since long time. The common man is facing this rampant corruption, but a person for the charges of corruption under the Act cannot be convicted on moral and ethics. When the law provides certain mandatory requirements for proving offence, no shortcut is permitted."
13. Candidates Born In Maharashtra But Completed 10th/ 12th From Outside Due To Parent's Army Posting Entitled To State Quota In Admissions: High Court
Case Title: Priya Kedar Gokhale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court read down rule for Maharashtra quota reservation with respect to admission in 5-year law program in the State for candidates who are born/ domiciled in Maharashtra but who could not complete their 10th/ 12th from the State on account of their parent's army posting.
The court stated that the condition of passing 10th and 12th standard from Maharashtra may not be unreasonable, however, relaxation should be made for cases where the candidate does not have a choice, such as the service conditions of the parents due to which they are posted throughout the country in the service of the nation.
14. God Is Not A Fiefdom Of Ruling Party: Bombay High Court Cancels Appointment Of Managing Committee Of Sai Baba Shirdi Trust
Case title: Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench quashed the appointment of the managing committee of the Sai Baba Shirdi Trust observing that trustees to a public trust must be appointed for the betterment of devotees and not for the "ruling government to accommodate their party workers or politicians".
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Mehare held that the committee chaired by MLA Ashutosh Kale was illegally appointed by the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi led government in 2021, violating provisions of the special Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004 as well as directions of the court.
15. "Wife Knows Husband's Salary": Bombay HC Enhances Compensation To Driver's Kin Under Employees' Compensation Act Sans Salary Slip In 19 Yr Old Case
Case title: Sunita and Ors v. Sandipan Dyanoba Tathapare and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench enhanced compensation awarded to a deceased truck driver's kin under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 relying on the oral testimony of the wife.
Justice SG Dige observed that the labour court wrongly discarded the wife's evidence in the absence of a salary slip in a 19-year-old-case.
16. Bombay High Court Orders Inquiry Into Father's Allegations That Police Prosecuted His Minor Son For Murder As Adult On Failure To Offer Bribe
Case Title: Vikas Ramji Yadav Through Ramji Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
Bombay High Court ordered an inquiry to be conducted into a father's allegations that his son was being wrongfully treated as an adult in a murder case despite being a juvenile.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Madhav Jamdar passed the order in a petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus for release or production of the petitioner detained at the Thane Central Prison.
The court directed the Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the father against the Police Inspector (PI) investigating the case.
17. Approval Granted By Pune Municipal Corporation To Straighten Ambil Odha Stream Valid: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kishor Manohar Kamble and Anr v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
The Bombay High Court held that the approval granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Vigilance) to straighten the Ambil Odha stream is valid as it is in line with the Town Development Scheme of 1989.
Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar dismissed two writ petitions challenging the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation to straighten the Ambil Odha stream flowing through the city of Pune.
18. 'Anath' Not Stigmatic: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL To Change Nomenclature For Orphans In Govt Records
Case Title: Swanath Foundation v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to change the nomenclature for an orphan in Government records from "anath" to "swanath" or self-made observing that there was no stigma attached to the word "anath".
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar said that courts must be alive to the laxman rekha within which they must function.
19. [Debt Recovery] Service Of Summons Mandatory, Not Dispensed With Party Entering Appearance By Filing Vakalatnama: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sunil Gupta and Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court held that the appearance of an Advocate and filing of a Vakalatnama does not do away with the requirement to serve summons in a debt recovery application observing that serving of summons is a mandatory procedural requirement.
The court held that even assuming that requirement of service of summons was fulfilled, the order is still an ex-parte order as the advocate stopped appearing before the tribunal. There are sufficient grounds to set aside the order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.
20. Bombay High Court Allows Agisilaos Demetriades' Plea To Quash Preventive Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act
Case Title: Agisilaos Demetriades v. The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Bombay High Court quashed a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, issued against Agisilaos Demetriades - brother of actor Arjun Rampal's girlfriend - after he claimed that certain documents were provided to him in Hindi, a language he doesn't understand.
21. It Is The Bonafide Mistake Of Taxpayer Paying To Railways Instead Of GST Department: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Arun Krishnachandra Goswami v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court directed that the amounts which have been wrongly paid to railways by the petitioner should be paid to the CGST authorities and SGST authorities within two weeks.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor noted that the taxpayer has made a mistake and instead of paying the Government of India through the CGST authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the SGST authorities, the entire amount was paid to the Government of India through Indian Railways.
22. S.155 Maha Land Revenue Code | Tehsildar Can Correct Revenue Records During Pendency Of Acquisition Proceedings
Case Title: Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that Tehsildar has the jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to correct status of land in the revenue record which may substantially impact the amount of compensation, even if acquisition proceedings are pending before the High Court.
"The proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are clearly independent proceedings and if they aid in determining just and fair compensation to land owners, then it cannot be said that the proceedings could not have been initiated or the orders passed by the Tahsildar deserved to be set aside, merely because proceedings pertaining to the determination of quantum of compensation are pending before this Court", Justice Manish Pitale observed in his order.
23. 'Utter Lack of Objectivity': Bombay High Court On CWCD's Refusal To Renew Licenses of 57 Child Care Homes
Case Title: Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner of Women and Child Development (CWCD) can't refuse renewal of licenses without hearing or opportunity to correct defects to applicants. CWCD had outrightly rejected licence renewal proposals of at-least 57 NGOs under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, without a hearing or giving them an opportunity to correct their defects.
A division bench of Justices Magesh Patil and Sandeep Marne at Aurangabad directed the CWCD to re-consider proposals of at least nine NGOs who approached the court.
24. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Conducts Sensitive Research In Nuclear Science: Bombay HC Upholds Rejection Of Candidature Citing Criminal Antecedents
Case title: Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
The Bombay High Court upheld cancellation of a man's candidature for a post at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for non-disclosure of a criminal case against him observing that honesty and integrity are the inherent requirements in public employment.
Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature for a post at the BARC.
25. Prima Facie Deep Involvement With RDF & Maoist Activities: Bombay High Court Refuses Bail To DU Professor Hany Babu In Elgar Parishad Case
Case title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to Delhi University Professor Hany Babu accused in Elgar Parishad case observing that mobilising rallies and co-ordinating the defence of convicted professor GN Saibaba was not just helping a fellow academic, but prima facie following a leftist handbook.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar said that their opinion about Babu not just being a mere sympathiser but being someone who was given substantial responsibility, at RDF, an alleged front organisation, was based on broad probabilities.
26. Bombay High Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Portions of Union Minister Narayan Rane's Residence Within Two Weeks (livelaw.in)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
The Bombay High Court refused to direct BMC to consider regularising 300% additional construction at Union Minister Narayan Rane's Juhu residence. The court gave two weeks to demolish the illegal portions.
Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata said that the corporation is "bent upon" considering the application (for regularisation) irrespective of the provisions of law. However, allowing the petition would be "encouragement" of wholesome unauthorised construction.
27. Employee Deemed To Be Suspended Due To Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Back Wages Upon Acquittal, Unless Suspension Wholly Unjustified: Bombay HC
Case Title: Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
The Bombay High Court held that an employee deemed to be suspended due to criminal charges is not entitled to back wages despite his acquittal as a deemed suspension is not a discretionary decision and cannot be considered unjustified.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nitin W. Sambre dismissed a writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order upholding Disciplinary Authority's decision to not grant the petitioner back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension.
28. Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School
Case Title: Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court refused to allow petitioner to change his date of birth in the school record stating that only obvious errors can be corrected after the student has left the school.
Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pednekar refused to entertain a writ petition praying for change in date of birth in the school record after he had left the school.
29. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bollywood Actor Armaan Kohli In Drug Case
Case Title: Armaan Kohli v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Bollywood actor Armaan Kohli in an illicit drug traffic case. Justice Nitin W. Sambre directed that Kohli be released on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties.
30. Category For Premature Release More Beneficial To Convict Will Apply If Case Falls Under Two Different Categories Within Same Guidelines: Bombay HC
Case Title: Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court held that number of persons who committed the murder is irrelevant in cases related to trade union activities while categorizing the case for the purpose of premature release of life convicts. Even assuming that it falls under both the categories, the more beneficial category will apply to the petitioner's case.
"What is relevant is murder should have been committed as a result of trade union activities and therefore, whether murder has been committed by more than one person/group of persons is totally irrelevant", the court held.
31. Air India Privatisation: Bombay HC Says Writ Petitions Against Airline No Longer Maintainable
Case Title: R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions filed by employees against Air India Limited (AIL) are no longer maintainable due to subsequent privatisation of AIL even though they were maintainable at the inception of the case. The change in the status of the 'authority' against whom the writ was initially claimed plays a significant role in determining the issue of maintainability, said the court.
32. Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School
Case Title: Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court granted protection to a retired Junior Assistant (Class II officer) against recovery of excess salary and benefits erroneously paid to him by the Water Resources Department of the Government of Maharashtra during his service.
"We have two very strong reasons in the present case for arriving at a conclusion that the recovery would be arbitrary, viz. unduly long period of 23 years of recovery and retirement of the petitioner", the court held.
33. Mere Reference To Proposal Containing An Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Signed By One Party, Would Not Amount To An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court has ruled that in an agreement executed by both the parties which contains independent terms and conditions, a mere reference to a proposal containing an arbitration clause which was unilaterally signed by one party, would not amount to an arbitration agreement coming into existence between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that for an arbitration agreement to come into existence, there must be a document incorporating an arbitration clause or agreement which is executed by both the parties, showing a consensus ad-idem between them.
34. S.24 HMA | Divorce Decree Granted Without Deciding Application For Maintenance Pendente Lite: Bombay HC Remands Case Back To Family Court
Case Title: Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has remanded a divorce case back to the family court after the family court granted divorce without deciding interim application for maintenance pendente lite filed by the wife.
"The directions are also required to be issued to the trial Court to decide the interim application preferred by the appellant for maintenance pendente lite in accordance with the provision of Hindu Marriage Act", the court said.
35. Bombay HC Full Bench Quashes Notices Transferring 'Cherry Picked' NGT Cases From Goa to Delhi
Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
A full bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed administrative notices issued by the Registrar General of the National Green Tribunal "cherry picking" cases relating to Goa from the Western Zone bench at Pune and transferring them to the Northern bench at New Delhi.
Making various observations on the lack of clarity about the reasons why it was being done as well as the lack of jurisdiction for doing so, the full bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justices Gautam Patel and M S Sonak also called the notices violative of Article 14 and suffering "from the impermissible vice of manifest arbitrariness."
36. 'Navratri A Festival Dear To People': Bombay High Court Junks PIL Challenging Falguni Pathak's Program At Sports Ground
Case title: Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court dismissed a journalist's PIL against the commercial exploitation of a recreational ground in Kandivali for holding singer Falguni Pathak's annual Navratri program between September 26 to October 5.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, under which the permission was granted, was not challenged. Under the Section, the planning authority is allowed to temporarily change the usage of the public ground for commercial exploitation.
37. Watchmen In Aided Private Ashram Schools Entitled To Equal Pay Scale As Those In Govt Ashram Schools: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court recently directed the state government to extend the pay scale of watchmen in government Ashram Schools to temporary watchmen in private aided Ashram Schools, relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The court held that the petitioners are required to be granted minimum pay in the pay scale admissible for the post of Watchmen/security guards/multitasking staff engaged in the government ashram schools.
38. Bombay HC Paves Way For Uddhav Thackeray Led Shiv Sena To Hold Dussehra Rally At Shivaji Park, Rejects Shinde Faction's Intervention
Case Title: The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena to hold the party's annual Dussehra rally at Shivaji Park on October 5, 2022.
The court set aside BMC's order refusing permission and directed the civic body to grant permission from October 2-6, 2022.
A division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also rejected the intervention application filed by Sada Sarvankar, sitting MLA from Shinde faction opposing the petition, stating that Sarvankar has no locus in the case.
39. Cannot Recover 'Excess Retiral Benefits' After Allowing Officer To Continue Beyond Retirement Date: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) whose pension and gratuity was reduced by the local body after a government clarification said only public health department doctors were to be given extension of two years in service beyond the date of retirement. The court directed the TMC to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner. The court also restrained the TMC from recovering any further amount from the petitioner's pension.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the decision in a writ petition challenging reduction in pension and gratuity and recovery of excess payment from his retiral benefits.
40. Half of Life Imprisonment Is 10 Years for POCSO Offences: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court sentenced a convict to one half of life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, who will have to undergo a sentence of 10-years.
Justice Sarang Kotwal held that since life imprisonment was not defined under the POCSO Act, the definition of life imprisonment under section 57 of the Indian Penal Code would apply.
The section provides that for calculating a fraction or part of an entire sentence, life imprisonment would be equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.
"Thus, half of life imprisonment in such cases would mean imprisonment for ten years," Justice Kotwal observed while disposing off the petition.
41. State's Obligation To Protect Citizens From Wild Animal Attacks, Any Injury Caused Is Govt's Failure: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
Stating that while it is the duty of the State government to protect wild animals and not allow them wander outside the restricted zone, the Bombay High Court Monday said it is also obligatory upon the state to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse ruled that it is a twin obligation of the State Government to protect wild animals and the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. "If any wild animal causes injury to any person, this in fact is a failure of the State Government to protect right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the court held.
42. Reference Made Under MSMED Act; District Court Has Power To Extend Mandate Or Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A Of A&C Act: Bombay High Court
Case title: M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which enables the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator or substitute the Arbitrator, would be applicable to the reference made under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that since there is no provision under the MSMED Act to extend the mandate of the arbitrator or substitute the arbitrator, hence, if the provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act are made inapplicable to the reference made under the MSMED Act, it would render the arbitral scheme under the MSMED Act otiose.
43. Daughter Making Monetary Demand From Father Not Meant To Abet His Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR
Case title: Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of abetting her father's suicide, observing that it is unlikely that she demanded money from him with the purpose of driving him to commit suicide.
Justice Manish Pitale and Justice G. A. Sanap allowed a writ petition for quashing of FIR and observed that it would be 'stretching things a bit far' to conclude that the accused, through her mother, intentionally drove her father to commit suicide.
44. Actor Ajaz Khan Prima Facie Connected To Subsequent Recoveries: Bombay HC Refuses Bail Despite Possession of Small Quantity Contraband
Case Title: Ajaz Mohammad Shaf Khan v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
The Bombay High Court rejected bail plea of Bollywood actor Ajaz Khan in an alleged financing of illicit drug trade case despite recovery of small quantity of contraband from him, on the ground that his role in the conspiracy was revealed by statements of witnesses and co-accused.
Justice Bharti Dangre said that he is connected to recovery of commercial quantity from the co-accused.
45. Liquor License Can't Be Suspended Citing Family Dispute Between Legal Heirs After Death Of License Holder In Partnership: Bombay HC
Case Title: Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Anr. v. The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
A dispute between legal heirs cannot be a ground to suspend the liquor license held in the name of a deceased partner of a firm under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and rules thereunder, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held while quashing the order passed by Collector of State Excise.
Justice Manish Pitale relied on two circulars which stated that licenses should be temporarily renewed subject to the outcome of the dispute, if a valid application is made by even one of the disputing partners with proper compliance.
46. Bombay HC Dismisses Plea By Jiah Khan's Mother Seeking Fresh Investigation Into Actress' Death
Case Title: Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The Bombay High Court dismissed Rabia Khan's petition seeking fresh investigation into her daughter and Bollywood actress Jiah Khan's suicide by the stating that CBI has carried out a 'fair, impartial, and transparent' probe into the case in a 'thorough' manner.
The court said that Rabia Khan is trying to delay the trial by repeatedly filing petitions having identical grounds and prayers. The court strongly deprecated the repeated filing of proceedings by the petitioner for the same cause of action.
47. Limitation Period Starts After Affixing Signatures On GST Registration Cancellation Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.
"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.
The court observed that unless a digital signature is put by the issuing authority, the order will have no effect in the eyes of the law.
48. 'Demolished Without Hearing Fisherfolk' - Bombay High Court Directs Mumbai Suburban Collector To Reconstruct Crematorium
Case Title: Chetan Vyas v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
The Bombay High Court has directed the District Collector Mumbai Suburban to reconstruct a decades-old crematorium on Erangal Beach in Mumbai which was earlier demolished for alleged Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violations without hearing the local fisherfolk who built it.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar noted that the crematorium was in existence even before the CRZ notification of February 18, 1991 and therefore quashed Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)'s order declaring it illegal.
49. Dandiya And Garba Can Be Performed Without Loudspeakers And DJ Sound, Celebrate Navratri In Traditional Way: Bombay High Court To RWA
Case Title: Pawan Shamsundar Sarda and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
Granting permission to Ramdaspeth Plot Owners and Residents Association to organize its Navratri festival including dandiya and garba performances in a silence zone, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court said the religious celebration can still be performed in a purely traditional and religious way.
"Dandiya and Garba performances being intrinsic part of a religious celebration can still be performed in purely traditional and religious way, which do not contemplate use of modern gadgets like, music system, loudspeakers, DJ sound and the like", the court said.
A division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Govind Sanap passed the order in a writ petition objecting to the organization of Navratra Festival wherein the petitioners are apprehending playing of loud music on DJ causing loud noise harmful to humans.
50. Air India Employees' Accommodation: Bombay HC Directs Centre To Take 'Fresh Decision' On Reference Of Dispute To Industrial Tribunal
Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court held that if the Government declines reference of a dispute to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, it must do so based on a final, and not prima facie satisfaction that no industrial dispute arises in the case.
The court held that the decision of the Central Government not to refer a dispute between Air India employees and Air India Ltd. regarding vacation of their allotted residences to the Tribunal was patently illegal and without application of mind as it not recorded r.
The court noted that the government held the demands of the joint committee to be 'extraneous' and declined to refer the dispute to the tribunal without giving the reasoning behind this conclusion.
51. Bombay HC Full Bench Accepts Apology From Adv Mathews Nedumpara, Discharges Contempt Notice
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
The Bombay High Court discharged a 2017 contempt notice against Advocate Mathews Nedumpara after accepting his "bona fide, unconditional and unqualified" apology.
"We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself, and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required," a full bench of Justices Gautam Patel, MS Karnik and Bharati Dangre observed.
52. Reliance On Evidence Filed After Conclusion Of Hearing; Award Is Patently Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
The Bombay High Court ruled that where the only documentary material relied upon by the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, is introduced on record surreptitiously and after the conclusion of hearing, the arbitral award is vitiated on account of patent illegality.
The Single Bench of Justice Rohit B. Deo held that the power of the court under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to remand the matter back to the arbitrator is discretionary, which must be exercised judiciously and only in appropriate cases. The Court added that where the integrity of the arbitral proceedings was compromised, and crucial evidence was introduced on record after conclusion of hearing, it was not an appropriate case to exercise discretion under Section 34 (4).
53. Bombay High Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Portions Of Former BJP MLA Narendra Mehta's Hotel
Case Title: Faiyyaz Mullaji v. Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
The Bombay High Court ordered demolition of substantial portions of former BJP MLA Narendra Mehta's Seven Eleven Hotel in Mira Road.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik allowed the PIL filed by one Faiyyaz Mullahji and directed all construction beyond 0.2 FSI to be demolished by Mehta within two months.
54. 'Why Are You Encroaching On Others' Rights': Bombay High Court on PIL Seeking Ban on Advertising Non-Veg Food
Case Title: Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
The Bombay High Court questioned the Jain religious bodies, who were seeking a ban on advertising of non-vegetarian food items, as to why they were encroaching on someone else's right by making the demand.
"There is no law that provides this. You are asking us to frame law. And what about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution? Why are you encroaching on other's rights?," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed and granted the three trusts liberty to withdraw the petition and come with "better particulars and appropriate prayers."
55. 'Directions May Be Passed On Administrative Side': Bombay High Court On PIL For Timely Recording Of POCSO Victim's Testimony
Case Title: Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
The Bombay High Court directed a public interest litigant seeking proper enforcement of POCSO Act, to approach the High Court Committee on POCSO matters, with his suggestions.
The petition sought directions to the Special Courts to ensure that the testimony of the minor victim is recorded within one month, as per Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act. The ad-hoc committee overseeing POCSO matters comprises of Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Bharati Dangre.
The petition challenged non-compliance of Section 35 of the POCSO Act read with section 309 of CrPC and the directions of Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Shrivastava v. Union of India. The PIL also sought a direction to all Special POCSO Courts for a time bound conclusion of cases.
Other developments
1. Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging CGST Rules
Case Title: SAT Industries Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
The Bombay High Court issued notice to Maharashtra and central government in a petition challenging amendment to Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).
Earlier, Rule 21A(2) of the CGST Rules 2017 provided for a reasonable opportunity of being heard before suspension of registration. However, this portion has been deleted via notification dated 22nd December, 2020.
Petitioner is challenging the omission of the words "after affording the said person a reasonable opportunity of being heard" in Rule 21A(2) contending that this omission violates principles of natural justice.
2. Bombay High Court To Suo Moto Analyze Rights Of Wild Animals In Human Dominated Society, Takes Cognizance Of Gadchiroli Elephants Shifting To Zoo
Case Title: Court on its own Motion v. Union of India
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance of Forest Department's decision to move wild elephants from Gadchiroli forest to a zoo.
Justices Sunil B. Shukre and Valmiki SA Menezes took up the matter after a news item published in Times of India which reported that three wild elephants had been shifted to a proposed zoo in Gujarat was brought to the court's notice.
The court observed that the issue was of seminal importance from the viewpoint of public interest and raises a fundamental issue regarding rights of wild animals within the society dominated by human beings and the framework of the Constitution.
The court observed that presence of wild elephants adds to the biodiversity of Gadchiroli forest. Shifting them to a Zoo would result in harming biodiversity, and would be against the spirit of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
3. 411 Deaths Due To Malnutrition: Bombay High Court Summons Nandurbar District Collector
Case Title: Dr. Rajendra Sadanand Burma and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court on Monday summoned the Collector of Nandurbar district over high number of child and maternal deaths in the district due to malnutrition and lack of adequate medical facilities.
The court directed that report titled "Rapid Assessment of Child and Maternal Health by Team" submitted by intervenor Bandu Sane be served to the Collector who will file an affidavit in reply to this report and the petitions before September 21st, 2022. The court directed the collector to appear in person on September 23rd, 2022.
The court also directed the Director of Health Services to submit a comprehensive report about the issue before September 21st, 2022.
4. Bombay High Court CJ Dipankar Datta Recuses From Hearing PIL Seeking To Expedite Process For Appointment Of Judges
Case Title: Dr. Sharmila Ghuge v. Union of India and Ors.
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta of Bombay High Court recused from hearing a Public Interest Litigation praying for the process of appointment of judges at the high court to be expedited.
The PIL, filed by Dr. Sharmila Ghuge, professor of law at Mumbai University also prays that retired high court judges be appointed as ad-hoc judges till the process of fulfilling the sanctioned strength of 94 regular judges is completed.
5. Advocates' Association Approaches Bombay HC Against National Consumer Commission's Clean Chit To Judge Who Decided His Own Case
Case Title: Consumer Courts Advocates Associates v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors.
The Consumer Courts Advocates' Association recently approached the Bombay High Court against the National Consumer Commission's clean chit to a member-judge of the Maharashtra Consumer Commission who decided his own case.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCRDC) order reads like a "character certificate" without giving the complainant a chance to be heard or even considering other complaints against the same member judge, the petition filed under Article 226 states.
6. Eight Law Students Move High Court Over Delayed Result By GLC Mumbai; Seek State Bar Enrolment, Admission To LLM
Case title – Abhishek Vishnudev Mishra and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Eight students of Government Law College, Mumbai (GLC) affiliated with Mumbai University, have filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court praying for declaration of their final semester results.
The petition alleges that the petitioners' results were not declared along with the rest of the students. Another sixty-four students of the Mumbai University are facing similar issues. The delay in declaration of results has caused the students to lose employment and higher education opportunities
7. 'Won't Interfere If For Greater Good': Bombay High Court Asks BMC To Explain Legal Basis For Imposing Fine For Violation Of Mask Mandate
Case Title: Sohan Rajeev Agate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to explain the logic behind imposing fines for violation of mask mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A division bench Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing two PILs seeking refund of fines collected by the state for violation of the mask mandate.
Chief Justice Datta asked the BMC to explain the basis in law for making it compulsory to wear masks and imposing fines on people who violate the mandate. "If the government has mandated masks for the greater good, then the court will not interfere," the CJ said.
8. Prima Facie Court Machinery 'Abused' To Demolish Decades Old Crematorium: Bombay HC Pulls Up District Collector Mumbai Suburban, MCZMA
Case Title: Chetan Kodarlal Vyas v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court reprimanded the District Collector Mumbai Suburban and the MCZMA over demolition of an old crematorium in Mumbai without serving any notice to the local fisherfolk who built it.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar saw red over the manner in which the authorities obtained demolition orders from a coordinate bench when the CJ was unavailable.
"Prima Facie we are satisfied that machinery of the court has been abused to ensure removal of the crematorium," the CJ said in his order.
9. Bombay HC Asks BMC Chief To Present Plan On Repairing Pothole-ridden Roads
Case Title: Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashta and Ors.
The Bombay High Court asked Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Chief Iqbal Chahal to prepare a roadmap on how he plans to get 20 worst pothole-ridden roads in Mumbai repaired.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar asked Chahal to be present before the court at a date of his convenience next week to present the roadmap. In the meantime, he is supposed to get a survey conducted of the roads.
10. Resort Owner Who Purchased Land From Former Maharashtra Minister Anil Parab Approaches Bombay High Court Against Demolition Order
Case Title: Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Union of India
A businessman approached the Bombay High Court to save his resort from demolition over alleged Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) violations. The resort is built on land allegedly purchased from Maharashtra's former Transport Minister Anil Parab.
11. 'Utter Violation Of Right To Live In Peace': PIL in Bombay High Court Seeks Ban On Advertising Non-Veg Food
Case Title: Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors.
Three Jain religious charitable trusts approached the Bombay High Court with a PIL urging the court to order a ban on advertisements of non-veg food, terming such promotions as an "utter violation" of the right to live in peace.
The petition prays for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to frame rules or guidelines to ban advertisement of non-veg food in any media. The petition also prays for a direction to the respondents to print warning on the packaged non-veg products stating, "Consumption of non-veg food is harmful to health and environment".
12. Bombay HC Stays IT Dept's Prosecution Notice To Anil Ambani Over Alleged Secret Funds In Swiss Bank Accounts
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Reliance ADA Group chairman Anil Ambani and restrained the Income Tax Department from acting on a prosecution notice issued to him for alleged non-disclosure of money in two Swiss Bank Accounts amounting to approximately Rs. 814 crores.
A division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha noted that petitions regarding the retrospective applicability of the Act were pending before various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court.
13. Sikh Couple Approaches Bombay High Court For Implementation of Anand Marriage Act in Maharashtra
A Sikh lawyer-couple, who married last year, approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions for implementation of Anand Marriage Act in the state.
Their plea seeks formulation of rules under the Anand Marriage Act 1909 and registration of their marriage under the law.
The Act was enacted in 1909 to give legality and sanctity to the marriage ceremony among Sikhs known as Anand Karaj. In 2012, it was amended by incorporating Section 6, which required each state to formulate their own rules. Ten years since, the State of Maharashtra is yet to formulate rules on the same, the petition states.
14. Lack Of Specialist Doctors Affecting Tribal Women & Children: Bombay High Court On '62% Medico Vacancies' In Govt Hospitals
The Bombay High Court was recently informed that 62% of the Group A posts of MBBS and BAMS doctors in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services are lying vacant. Out of 1786 posts, 1112 are vacant.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik took note of this in a Public Interest Litigation regarding deaths of women and children due to lack of proper medical care in the tribal belt of Maharashtra.
74% of Maharashtra General State Service Group B (BAMS Doctors) posts are vacant, the court was told. For Group C (Staff nurses, paramedical staff etc.) and Group D (peons, janitors etc), there are an unusually high 30% of vacant posts. For Group C, 22234 posts have been filled while 9351 posts are vacant, the court was told.
15. Justice Ravindra Ghuge Recuses From Hearing Plea Accusing Sitting Bombay HC Judge of Involvement In A Tender Process
Justice Ravindra Ghuge heading a division bench at Aurangabad recused from hearing a contractor's plea against the rejection of his technical bid to construct a ground plus 10 storey structure for High Court judges at Sneha Nagar, Aurangabad.
The petition filed by Tajuddin Pathan of Baba Construction, through Advocates Gunratan Sadavarte and Jaishri Patil, alleges malafide against an MLA and a sitting HC judge, however, neither of them have been impleaded as respondents.
16. After Bombay HC Nudge, Dr. Ambedkar's MSc Thesis To Be Published
The Maharashtra government informed the Bombay High Court that it will publish Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's M. Sc. thesis.
A division bench of Justices Prasanna Varale and Kishore Sant was hearing a suo moto PIL taking cognizance of government's earlier decision to halt a project for preservation and publication of Ambedkar's works.
The state informed the court that the UK Senate library has granted permission to the state to publish his thesis titled 'Decentralisation of Provincial Imperial Finance in British India'.
17. BMC Be Made Single Planning Authority For Mumbai, 20 Worst Roads To Be Repaired In Next 3 Months: Municipal Commissioner To Bombay High Court
The BMC Commissioner Iqbal Chahal suggested that the roads and bridges in Greater Mumbai owned by authorities such as MMRDA, MSRDC, PWD, MIDC, Railways and Port Trust should be handed over to the urban local body for regular maintenance.
The submission was made before the Bombay High Court during the hearing of a case related to bad condition of roads in the state. Chahal told the court that concretization of roads is the way to move forward as the same has a 30-years pothole-free guarantee.