Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 09 - December 15, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635Nominal Index:Khimjibhai Patadia vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625Jayanth Kumar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 626Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627Abdul Samad Akbar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 628Bharat Dedhia vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 629Vijay Fasale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 630A.H. Wadia Charity Trust & Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 631Rekha Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 632Ashwini Ashish Dighe vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 633Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 634Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635Judgments/Final Orders: 'Sophisticated Form Of Extortion': Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 5 Lakh Costs On 'Unscrupulous' Tenant For Frivolous PetitionCase Title: Khimjibhai Patadia vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625The Bombay High Court while slapping a fine of Rs 5 lakh on a tenant for 'obstructing' redevelopment of a nearly 83-year-old building, observed that often such petitions by tenants amount to 'sophisticated form of extortion' and thus such 'obstructionist' behaviour of the tenants must be deterred.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata noted that filing petitions in the court is the 'quickest and cheapest' method, often resorted to by the tenants to stall redevelopment of old and dilapidated buildings.Duty Bound To Implement Court Orders: Bombay HC Imposes 25K Cost Over Police's Failure In Returning Passport Despite Court OrderCase Title: Jayanth Kumar vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 626The Bombay High Court on Monday while pulling up the Mumbai Police for not returning the passport of a man, despite a clear order by a Sessions court, said the Police is duty bound to implement an order passed by any court.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shivkumar Dige also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the State for the failure of the officers at Mumbai's plush Cuffe Parade Police Station, to return the passport of one Jayanth Kumar.Unified Development Control & Promotional Regulations Must Be Read In Consistence With Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act: High CourtCase title: Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627In a case relating to the denial of Occupation Certificate (OC) to a developer, the Bombay High Court has observed that the restrictions on land use and development commences when the Draft Regional Plan (DRP) under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) is published.In doing so, a division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that the any permission granted under the MRTP Act before coming into effect of the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (UDCPR) would be valid, as the UDCPR has to be read in a manner that is consistent with the MRTP Act.Mira Road Communal Riots: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 14 Muslim Men, Booked For Rioting, Injuring Hindu FamilyCase Title: Abdul Samad Akbar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 628The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to 14 Muslim men accused of rioting and injuring a Hindu family as it celebrated the consecration of the Ayodhya Lord Ram Temple in Mira Road, on January 21, this year.Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar noted that the accused were in custody since January and the fact that given the huge number of witnesses and accused, the trial is unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time."Cannot Force Citizens To Run From Pillar To Post": Bombay HC Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Insurance Company For Circumventing Ombudsman's OrderCase Title: Bharat Dedhia vs Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 629The Bombay High Court on Monday, while slapping exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on an insurance company, ordered the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and the Ministry of Finance to consider coming up with a mechanism to keep a check on insurance companies as to whether they are complying with the orders of the Insurance Ombudsman.A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra jain was irked to note that despite a clear order of the Ombudsman passed on May 3, 2021 directing the insurance company - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to pay Rs 27.13 lakhs to one Bharat Dedham (68), the company did not pay the same, citing some or the other reason.Bombay High Court Slaps ₹25K Costs On School Clerk For Attempting To 'Hoodwink' JudiciaryCase Title: Vijay Fasale vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 630The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on a clerk working in an educational institution, for...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 09 - December 15, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags