Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

Nominal IndexHanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117 Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118 Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119 Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120 Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122 Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123 Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124 Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125 Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126 Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127 ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS 1. Bombay High Court Orders 7 Days Jail For Prison Superintendent For Denying Emergency Parole To Eligible Prisoners Case Title: Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116 The Bombay High Court held the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, Anupkumar M. Kumre, guilty of contempt and sentenced him to seven days' simple imprisonment for selectively denying prisoners emergency parole during the Covid pandemic. "If the Court finds that the Government's (officials) action in rejecting the grant of parole to a prisoner has the effect of suffocating the Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, in that case, the Court must act to restore the rule of law and respect the residuary fundamental rights of the prisoners," the court observed. A division bench of Justices VM Deshpande and Amit Borkar refused to accept Kumre's apology, fined him Rs. 5,000 and suspended the sentence for 10 weeks, allowing him to approach the SC for relief. 2. Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case On The Condition That Accused & Alleged Victim Shall Do Social Service For 6 Months Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117 The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case on the condition that the accused and the alleged victim shall extend social service for 6 months. The bench of Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice S. M. Modak directed the Applicant and the alleged victim (Respondent No. 2) to obtain certificates from the respective institutes [where they have been directed to extend social services] having rendered community service satisfactorily for the period of six months. The case was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix/alleged victim on a complaint made by her, however, later on, in Feb 2022, she filed a NOC affidavit saying that she lodged the complaint due to the compatibility issue and misunderstanding between herself and the accused-applicant. 3. Authority Under Maharashtra Police Act Can Extern Gang Members From Area Larger Than Where Criminal Activities Are Committed: Bombay High Court Case Title: Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118 The Bombay High Court held that the authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can pass externment orders directing externment of a person from much larger area than the one of his illegal activities. However, such order should be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction. A division bench of Justices VK Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More observed, "Even though the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are registered only in the Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar, but considering the latest modes of transportation, it appears that the authorities below have rightly restricted the petitioners from entering into entire Ahmednagar district to prohibit their criminal activities." 4. Strictly Follow Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines : Bombay High Court To Ola, Uber Case Title: Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119 The Bombay High Court asked cab aggregators, including Uber India and Ola, who were recently granted provisional licenses under the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020 framed by the Union government, to strictly follow the guidelines. The court also asked the Maharashtra government to consider customer feedback in the nature of complaints against the aggregators to find out if there is deficiency in the grievance redressal mechanism. The bench said it did not have the powers to legislate and order conditions for better grievance redressal to be added in the guidelines, it would however consider issuing directions. "The deficiencies will be addressed in a time-bound manner. The...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags