Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part I]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1 – 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215:Former IT Analyst Of TCS With Supervisory Responsibilities Not Workman: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former IT analyst of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) observing that the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.In the judgment, Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's order which held it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case since the petitioner Rohit Dembiwal was not a workman. The petitioner had challenged his alleged wrongful dismissal by the company in 2011.The court held that the petitioner was involved in managerial, supervisory or administrative functions like approving leave/timesheets of team members, handling their reimbursements, reviewing their appraisals, taking business decisions etc., indicating he is not a mere 'workman'.Bombay High Court Grants Bail To German Bakery Blast Convict Mirza Himayat Baig In 2010 Nashik Terror CaseCase Title: Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mirza Himayat Baig arrested in 2010 for allegedly being a Lashkar – E - Taiba operative and participating in a terror conspiracy in Nashik.Baig is already serving a life sentence in the German Bakery Blast Case.A division bench headed by Justice Revati Mohite Dere granted bail to Baig on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.Suspended Employee Not Required To Mark Daily Attendance For Subsistence Allowance: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever LimitedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3Bombay High Court held that an employee is entitled to receive subsistence allowance during suspension as per Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, without any condition imposed by the employer requiring the employee to mark daily attendance at the workplace.Subsistence allowance is given to an employee to maintain himself and his family during suspension in the absence of a salary.The judgment was delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav in a writ petition filed by Hindustan Level Employees Union challenging an award passed by the Labour Court in Daman rejecting the Union's claim for payment of subsistence allowance to its member Natubhai Patel.Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act | Divorced Woman Entitled To Maintenance Regardless Of Remarriage: Bombay High CourtCase Title: ABC v. XYZCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4The Bombay High Court held that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her first husband after divorce under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA) despite remarrying.Justice Rajesh Patil observed that there is no condition under section 3(1)(a) of MWPA disentitling a Muslim woman from getting maintenance after remarriage. “The protection referred to in the MWPA is unconditional. Nowhere does the said Act intend to limit the protection that is due to the former-wife on the grounds of the remarriage of the former-wife. The essence of the Act is that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage. The fact of divorce between the husband and wife is in itself sufficient for the wife to claim maintenance under section 3 (1) (a)”, the court held.Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate Accused Of Cheating Client By Forging Bail OrderCase Title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav accused of cheating a client by presenting a forged sessions court bail order for her husband in a murder case.Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that it is a serious offense extending beyond the immediate victim, affecting the public's faith in the legal system and thus, no leniency could be granted to the accused.Husband Can't Deny Maintenance To Wife Just Because She Is Staying In Matrimonial Home : Bombay High CourtCase Title: XXX v. XXXXCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 6The Bombay High Court held that a woman residing in the matrimonial home would also be entitled to maintenance to meet her basic expenses. The court dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the interim maintenance granted by a Family Court to his estranged wife and minor son.The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 10,000 for their 10-year-old son. Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child.”Domestic...

Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part I]

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags