Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 15 To July 21, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373]A vs P, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 350M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 356M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 357Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 358 Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 360M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 361Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 362Venus Jewel Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 363Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain, 024 LiveLaw (Bom) 364Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 365Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 366Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 367M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 369Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 370Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 371Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 372Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373Judgments/Final OrdersHigh Court Cannot Deprive Wife Of Her Right To Choose Appropriate Forum To Seek Maintenance: Bombay High CourtCase Title: A vs PCitation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance. With these observations, the High Court had dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs, a miscellaneous application filed by a husband, who sought to transfer the DV proceedings initiated by his wife before a Magistrate Court in Sewree to the Family Court in Bandra, where he himself has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife.'Unconvincing': Bombay HC Pulls Up Authorities For Delay In Deciding Representation Against Preventive Detention Due To Holidays, Official WorkCase Title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 350The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while dealing with the plea noted that the detenu had forwarded his representation against the preventive detention, on January 25, 2024, and the authorities decided the same after more than a month, i.e. February 26, 2024. The authorities explained the delay by citing reasons such as the detailed report (on detention) could not be prepared by the sponsoring authority as some of the policemen were on bandobast duty and some on election duty. They further cited public holidays, weekly holidays etc for the said delay in deciding the representation of the detenu. Terming this explanation 'unsatisfactory', the judges in their order observed, "..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."Court Continues To Be Flooded With Cases Where Minority Members Of Housing Societies Hinder Redevelopment Plans On 'Frivolous' Grounds: Bombay HCCase Title: M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 351The Bombay High Court expressed frustration at the conduct of non-consenting members of a Cooperative Housing Society who refused to vacate their flats despite the approval of a Development Agreement by majority of the Society's members. Justice Arif Doctor while...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 15 To July 21, 2024

Narsi Benwal

Tags