Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 04 - November 10, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 573 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 579Nominal Index:Ashwinkumar Sanap vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 573Puranlal Dhurve vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 574Mayur Ravindra Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 575Maharashtra Rajya Bandhkam Kamgar Sanyukt Kriti Samiti vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 576Rakesh Lal Meena and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 577X v/s State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 578State through Canacona Police Station vs Gulsher Ahmed, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 579Judgments/Final orders: Unless Recipient Chooses To Forward Message On WhatsApp, They Cannot Be Held Liable For Defamation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ashwinkumar Sanap vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 573A WhatsApp message is encrypted end to end and it can only be read by the person, who received it unless the recipient chooses to forward the message, thus in such a situation a sender cannot be booked for defaming a person in society, the Bombay High Court held recently.A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar quashed an FIR lodged against a man for allegedly defaming his in-laws by sending a 'defamatory' post on a WhatsApp message to one of the relatives of the complainant.'Mandate Of Day-To-Day Trial U/S 309 CrPC Is Thrown To The Wind': Bombay High Court Flags 'Unhealthy Practice' Of Trial CourtsCase Title: Puranlal Dhurve vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 574The Bombay High Court while ordering a 'retrial' in a rape case, noted the 'alarming state of affairs' of most criminal trials, wherein the courts have failed to conduct a 'day-to-day' trial and therefore, issued guidelines for the lower courts to strictly adhere to section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted various lapses on the part of the trial judge and also the prosecution that prejudiced the case of the victim and also the accused. The judge was disturbed to note that only 10 witnesses were examined in 2 years and 4 months by three separate trial judges.Bombay High Court Calls For Strict Action Against Developers Constructing Illegal Buildings; Denies Anticipatory Bail To DeveloperCase Title: Mayur Ravindra Bhagat vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 575Calling for a 'stringent action' against developers proceeding with construction projects without mandatory approvals, which leads to frauds, the Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a developer booked for usurping a man's ancestral property and constructing an illegal building over it and further selling flats to individual purchasers by forging mandatory permissions.Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha said in such cases, custodial interrogation is crucial as even some civic officials often connive with such fraud developers to commit fraud.Registration, Renewal And Welfare Schemes For Construction Workers Cannot Be Suspended Citing Election Code: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Maharashtra Rajya Bandhkam Kamgar Sanyukt Kriti Samiti vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 576The Bombay High Court on Thursday (November 7) while quashing the order of the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board (MBOCWWB), by which it stopped the fresh registration, renewal of registrations, distribution of benefits such as protective gears, essential gears, household utility sets, grant of fresh approvals under the housing scheme and publicity work of the Board, citing the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in view of the upcoming Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections.A division bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somsekhar Sundaresan ordered the MBOCWWB to forthwith start the operations of the various schemes under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.Long-Term Contract Employment Cannot Override Regular Recruitment Process; Bombay HCCase Name: Rakesh Lal Meena and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 577A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar directed the regularization of staff nurses employed on contract basis in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The court overturned the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal, ruling that the nurses, who were recruited through proper selection processes in accordance with the 1967 Service Rules, were entitled to regular appointment status despite being initially hired on contract.Not Allowing Daughter-In-Law To Watch TV, Meet Neighbours, Go To Temple Alone & Making Her Sleep On Carpet Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High CourtCase title: X v/s State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 578Quashing a...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 04 - November 10, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags