Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 14 To August 20, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 372 - 378]Sushila Gordhandas Parikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 372Olga Rosnina v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 373Suvarna Ratnakar Taras v. Mangalprabhat Lodha 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 374ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 375Govind Poslya Gavit v. The Competent Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 376Abhay Shamsundar Kurundkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 377Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 378Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Cancels NOC Of Builder Over Default In Payment Of Transit RentCase Title: Sushila Gordhandas Parikh v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 372The Bombay High Court on Friday cancelled the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to Parekh Constructions LLP, developer of a redevelopment project in South Mumbai due to its default on payment of transit rent to the residents of the demolished building.A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale ordered Parekh Constructions, Parekh Constructions LLP, and Nishcon Realty Pvt Ltd to entirely vacate the site, including removing personnel, security guards, equipment, and machinery, by Monday, August 14, 2023.The court directed Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to issue a formal letter for cancellation of NOC without giving any opportunity of hearing to the developers. The court added that it is open for MHADA to proceed in accordance with law for the appointment of another developer.Bombay High Court Quashes Deportation Order Against Russian National For Breach Of Visa Conditions Without HearingCase Title: Olga Rosnina v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Goa and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 373The Bombay High Court at Goa set aside a deportation order against a Russian national on grounds of breach of VISA condition observing that it was not a case of threat to internal security of India and authorities should have at least sought a clarification from the woman before ordering her deportation.A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P Deshpande observed that while the Central government has wide powers of deportation, it cannot ignore principles of natural justice and fair play while exercising its powers.Judgement Pronounced In Open Court But Signed After Transfer Of Judge A Valid Judgement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Suvarna Ratnakar Taras v. Mangalprabhat LodhaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 374A judgement pronounced in open court but signed by the judge after he was transferred is a valid judgement, the Bombay High Court has held.Justice Sharmila Deshmukh relied on several Supreme Court judgements which held that once a judgement was delivered or pronounced in open court, the manner of delivery couldn’t be faulted.The writ petition filed by the petitioner in a partition suit challenged an order setting aside the status quo in her favour on the ground that the judge signed the order after he was transferred. The defendants were Mangal Prabhat Lodha and another.“Although I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner that the judgment was signed after transfer of charge in view of the roznama on record and date below the signature, the aforesaid decisions are relied upon to drive home the point that judicial act of pronouncement of judgment in open court was complete and hence no fault can be found in the manner of delivery,” the court held and dismissed the petition.Mother Preferred Over Father For Custody Of Girl Child About To Attain Age Of Puberty: Bombay High CourtCase Title: ABC v. XYZCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 375Observing that paternal grandmother or paternal aunt cannot be a substitute to mother during the phase of growth of a girl child, the Bombay High Court recently held that custody of a girl about to attain the age of puberty is preferred with her mother over her father.Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh upheld a Family Court's order in a divorce case granting interim custody of an 8-year-old girl to her mother, who is also a doctor, and visitation rights to the father.“the girl child aged about 8 years would be undergoing hormonal changes and also physical changes and as such much care has to be taken during this phase of growth of the girl child and the paternal grand mother or the paternal aunt cannot be a substitute to the mother who is also a qualified doctor. During this phase of life, the girl child requires care and attention of a women who would be better equipped to understand the process of transformation which the girl child will undergo and as such, the mother at this stage is preferred against the father”, the court held.'Bureaucrats Cannot Act High-Handedly, Owe A Duty To Public': Bombay High Court Axes Acquisition Of Tribal Lands In Maharashtra’s NandurbarCase Title: Govind Poslya Gavit v. The Competent AuthorityCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 376Observing that procedural ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 14 To August 20, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags