Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 34 – 43]Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 38Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts v. Deputy Director of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 39Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 40Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41Neelam Ajit v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 42Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43Reports/JudgmentsHigh Court Declines To Quash Case Against Bandra Resident For Unauthorisedly Felling Tamarind Tree Leading To Death Of Birds, Destruction Of NestsCase Title: Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34The Bombay High Court refused to quash a case registered against a Bandra resident for allegedly ordering the felling of a Tamarind tree without prior permission, resulting in the death of several birds and the destruction of their eggs.Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak dismissed the criminal application filed by Amit Dhutia observing that prima facie a case was made out against Dhutia.The case was initiated on a complaint filed against Abhishek Soparkar Dhutia who was booked under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, along with Sections 9 and 51 of The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Sections 8 and 21 of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 registered with Khar Police Station, Mumbai.It was alleged he had affected the illegal chopping of a Tamarind tree located inside the compound of Petit School near the applicant's residential society building (Nector CHSL). It was alleged that such felling caused injury to birds and destruction of their nests.Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Goa Cess ActCase Title: Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of GoaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35The Bombay High Court upheld the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 (Goa Cess Act). The Act imposes cess on carriers transporting scheduled materials including coal, coke, sand, debris, garbage, packaged water, mineral ore etc. in Goa.The court accepted the state's argument that materials listed in the Act's schedule cause pollution and emphasized the state's responsibility to balance economic interests and development with the preservation of natural resources and environmental protection. It held that the state had legislative power to enact laws addressing adverse effects on health caused by human activities.Govt Money At Stake: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two Accused Of Cheating In Safari Bookings At Tadoba-Andhari Tiger ReserveCase Title: Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals accused of cheating the Forest Department out of booking amount received from tourists for online booking of jungle safari in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve.Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench, while rejecting anticipatory bail application of Abhishek and Rohitkumar Thakur, partners of the firm Wild Connectivity Solutions (WCS), observed –“Considering the role of applicants in the crime having involved enormous and huge amount, siphoning of the amount and fabrication of digital data, and the investigation revealing the manner in which the forest department is duped and the government money is at stake, the role of the applicants is clearly exposed. In the background of accusations and its gravity, applicants are not entitled for being released on bail in the event of their arrest.”The applicants are accused under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Bombay High Court Orders Non-Bailable Warrant Against Non-Cooperative Bank of Baroda Branch Manager In Case Involving Bequeathal Of Assets To CaretakerCase Title: Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37The Bombay High Court issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda (Fort), Rakesh Garg, in a testamentary matter wherein a spinster bequeathed her movable assets to her caretaker.Justice Manish Pitale passed the order in an interim application filed by the 49-year-old caretaker who alleged that despite a probated Will in his favor, three banks were refusing to cooperate.Previously, the court had issued notices to all three banks. While counsel appeared for Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Central Bank of India (CBI) on January 3, 2024, and assured cooperation from their end, none appeared for Bank of Baroda.The court noted that neither of the banks had filed responses and that there was still no representation from...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags