Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 472 - 482]Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala and Anr. v. Land Acquisition Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 472Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 473Ramkali Dayakisan Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 474Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 475Dr. Mahendra Vilas Phalke and Ors vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 476Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 477Lalit S/o Nandlal Bais v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 478ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 479Ravindra Dattaram Waikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 480ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 481Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 482Reports/JudgmentsLand Acquisition | Bombay High Court Directs Over Rs. 1.6 Crore Interest to Landowner As Compensation Not Deposited Before Taking PossessionCase Title: Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala and Anr. v. Land Acquisition OfficerCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 472The Bombay High Court held that landowners are entitled to interest on the compensation amount if the compensation is not paid or deposited before the acquiring body takes possession of the property.A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye directed the Collector, Mumbai City, to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 1.6 Crores for acquisition of two properties in Bhendi Bazaar, Mumbai.The court directed the Collector to pay interest to the Petitioners at a rate of 9 percent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 percent per annum from the start of the second year until the actual payment, which was made on October 20, 2022.The court allowed two writ petitions seeking interest on the compensation awarded to the petitioners under section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).Bombay High Court Orders Police Officer To Compensate NDA Professor Falsely Prosecuted For Alleged Fake Disability CertificateCase Title: Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 473The Bombay High Court ordered compensation of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to one Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari, an Assistant Professor at the National Defence Academy, Pune falsely prosecuted for producing fake disability certificates.A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha ordered the compensation to be recovered from the salary of the police officer who filed a chargesheet despite being informed by the hospital that records of the disability certificates had been found.The court observed that despite receiving a communication from Sassoon Hospital on September 9, 2016, confirming the availability of the original record, Pagare did not reexamine the case. The doctors’ statements were obtained before the original records were located; the court noted.The court acknowledged the officer’s apology, but emphasized that his actions caused mental agony, compromised Tiwari's dignity, and constituted a malicious prosecution.Govt Itself Seeks Needless Adjournments Then Makes Assertions About Rising Pendency Of Cases: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ramkali Dayakisan Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 474The Bombay High Court took a dig at the Centre’s dichotomous approach in often blaming Courts for restricting its “ease of doing business” on one hand and repeatedly seeking adjournments of cases on the other.A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata observed,“We are equally mindful, and we are constrained to say this, that we are no strangers to repeated assertions from the Union Government itself regarding pendency of cases, mounting arrears, frequent adjournments and impediments allegedly caused by our Courts to what the Government calls ‘the ease of doing business’.” The court said despite these claims by the government it often sought adjournments needlessly.“Conveniently overlooked in all these assertions is the fact that it is the Government that is by far the largest litigant, and it is the Government that most often seeks adjournments, frequently needlessly. This case is an example.”Nullifies Spirit Of JJ Act: Bombay High Court Seeks Explanation For High Pendency Of 40K Cases Before Juvenile Justice Board And Child Welfare CommitteeCase Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 475The Bombay High Court flagged the collective pendency of over 40,051 cases before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) while hearing a PIL by an NGO.The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande observed that the startling numbers were nullifying the spirit if the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.“…the figures of 10,008 cases pending before the Juvenile Justice Board...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 9 To October 15, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags