Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 To August 27, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 379- 393]Khairunisa Sheikh Chand v. Chandrashekhar Daulatrao Chincholkar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 379Asha Shivaji More v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 380ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 381Prakash Madhukarrao Desai v. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 382Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa Rev. Fr. Filipe Neri Ferrao v. State Information Commission 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 383Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 384Rahul S/o Sahdev Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 385Sudhir Dhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 386Ranjeet Sampatrao Raskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 387Sangita Vilas Kiwade v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 388Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 389State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Badrinarayan Gote 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 390 Jayendra Narandas Bhatia v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 391Vijay Choudhary v. state of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 392Astec LifeSciences Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 393Reports/JudgmentsTwo Children Limit For Panchayat Members Not Meant To Discourage Re-Marriage, Excludes Step-Children: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Khairunisa Sheikh Chand v. Chandrashekhar Daulatrao Chincholkar & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 379A panchayat member with more than two biological children could be disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, however, the member’s step children wouldn’t be a determining factor for the same, the Bombay High Court held.The court said that the objective of the Section was to disqualify a panchayat member responsible for the birth of more than two children. Therefore, a woman cannot be disqualified because her spouse has two children from his previous wedlock. According to Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Act - No person shall be a member of a panchayat, or continue as such, who has more than two children unless they were born before the cut-off date.A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi said, “It is not the object of the said provision to discourage re-marriage of a spouse who has more than two children from his/her previous wedlock.”Can Victim Appeal Against Acquittal Or Award Of Lesser Sentence By Appellate Court? Bombay High Court Refers Issue To Larger BenchCase Title: Asha Shivaji More v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 380The Bombay High Court referred to a larger bench the question of whether an appeal by the victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court is maintainable.Justice Modak while dealing with two criminal appeals filed by the victims against acquittal of the accused by the sessions court in appeal, observed,“I think forum for this (victim’s) Appeal is correlated to forum for an Appeal provided to the Accused against the judgment of conviction. If such forum is not there, how an Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court will be maintainable?. So also, there is a controversy when the Appellate Court convicts the accused, whether victim can prefer an Appeal under Section 372 proviso of the Code (for inadequate compensation/for higher sentence) ?”Trial Court Didn’t Conduct Inquiry Into Actual "Giving And Taking" Of Child In Adoption: Bombay HC Quashes Order Granting 2-Yr-Old’s Custody To Biological ParentsCase Title: ABC v. XYZCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 381The Bombay High Court quashed a civil court’s order directing a couple to hand over custody of a two-year-old adopted child to his biological parents and directed the civil court to decide their suit seeing a declaration that the adoption is valid, within six months.Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that the trial court failed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the actual "giving and taking" of the child in adoption. The court highlighted that evidence needed to be presented to establish the actual giving and taking of the child with the intent to transfer the child from one family to another.Underlining the sensitivity of the matter, the court said that there will be no extension of time for the final adjudication of the suit, and until then the child, who has been with the adoptive parents since he was two days old, will continue to remain with them.Cheque Holder's Failure To Record Loan In Books Not Ground To Dismiss Complaint U/S 138 NI Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Prakash Madhukarrao Desai v. Dattatraya Sheshrao DesaiCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 382The Bombay High Court recently held that failure of the cheque holder to record a loan given to a cheque drawer in books/Income Tax Returns will not by itself render the loan unenforceable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V Joshi observed that the existence of a ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 To August 27, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags