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

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383Nominal IndexKumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374Nirav Raval vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376 Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378 PCIT Versus G.K. Developers, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 379 Ajay Melwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 380KC Bokadia vs CBFC, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 381The State of Maharashtra & ors. vs. Mr. Baban Yeshwant Ghuge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 382Pramod Shendre vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383Judgments/Final Orders:Bombay HC Clamps Down On Horse-Trading Tactics In Municipal Elections, Post-Poll Alliances By Independent Candidates To Be Considered Pre-Poll AlliancesCase Title: Kumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374In a move that can halt 'horse-trading' tactics resorted to by independent candidates in the Municipal Councils, a five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that the post-poll alliances (post-poll Aghadi) formed by independent candidates after the elections, will be considered as pre-poll alliance and the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 will be applicable for all purposes for all meetings as a member of such Aghadi till the term of the Council. The five-judge bench headed by Justice Nitin Jamdar has held that if any such elected independent councillor joins any alliance after the election results are declared, such an alliance will be considered a pre-poll alliance, which will not be limited to subject committees.Merely Being Customers In A Bar Where Women Are Dancing Does Not Attract Offense Of Obscenity: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Nirav Raval vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375Mere presence as customers in a bar where women are dancing in an obscene manner, will not attract offences of obscenity or abetting any crime/obscene act, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak pronounced the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against four Ahemdabad-based men, who were booked from a Bar in South Mumbai for allegedly giving money to a waiter to blow the notes on the women, who were dancing there in an obscene manner.Allegations Of Ill-Treatment By Man Against His Family Members Cannot Come U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376 In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allegations of ill-treatment made by a man against his own family members will not fall within the ambit of section 498A (domestic violence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that in the instant case, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a woman along with her husband, against her in-laws. "A plain but careful reading of the FIR and the charge sheet indicates that the allegations against the Petitioners are quite general and vague. Undoubtedly, she has given a list of incidents of cruelty in the FIR, however, the instances are also of a nature that do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the husband's relatives. In fact, some of the ill-treatment as alleged is aimed against her husband and not even the complainant herself. Allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his own family members do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 498(A) of the IPC," the bench held in the July 18 judgment.[Section 9-A CPC] Trial Court Cannot Frame Issue Which Only Disposes Of The Suit In-Part: Bombay High CourtCase title: Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377The Bombay High Court has held that under Section 9-A CPC (now repealed by the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018), a Trial Court cannot frame an issue which has the effect of disposing of the suit only in part. The Court observed that Section 9A CPC enables any party to the suit to raise an objection of jurisdiction at the time of hearing of the application of interim relief. It stated that it is necessary to interpret the term 'suit' consistently throughout Section 9-A. It noted that the phrase 'made in any suit' in the first part of sub-section (1) refers to the application for interim relief being made in the context of the entire suit. Therefore, the expression 'such a suit' in the later part of suit as well. Bombay High Court Orders Mandatory Presence Of Medical Facilities In All Schools & Colleges Across MaharashtraCase Title: Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378 In a first, the Bombay High Court has ordered all...

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

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags