Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 10 To January 16, 2022

1. Face Heavy Cost Or Longer Court Dates For Getting Non- Urgent Matters Listed – Bombay High Court Tells LawyersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 5The Bombay High Court has cautioned lawyers against getting non-urgent matters listed and decided to impose high costs or adjourn matters for a long time if non-urgent cases are pushed for a hearing. As per its SOP from January 10, 2022, the Bombay High Court at its principal seat is functioning for only three hours between 12 pm – 3 pm and hearing only urgent cases. 2. COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High CourtCase Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.Case No: WPL 1275 of 2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6The Bombay HC quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act. A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws, for proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic apply in the present case. 3. Bombay High Court Allows Age-Barred Law Graduate To Participate In Judges Selection As Recruitments Got Stalled Due To COVIDCase Title: Rishab Murali vs State of Maharashtra & othsCase No: WPL 156/2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 7 In an interim relief to a law graduate from Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has allowed him to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate (First Class), despite being "age-barred." The petitioner contended that he was age-barred as the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) did not issue any advertisement for applications last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 4. Bombay HC Reinstates CISF Constable Accused Of Raping Colleague's 5-yr-old DaughterCase Title: Udaynath Tirkey vs The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & othrs Case No: WP 6859 of 2019Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 8The Bombay High Court has held that being accused of a heinous crime is not a good enough reason not to conduct a departmental enquiry before dismissing a constable from service under Rule 39(ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules akin to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The court quashed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)'s orders regarding the dismissal of a constable for allegedly raping a colleague's five-year-old daughter. Instead, it ordered the constable's reinstatement with a rider that CISF was not barred from initiating an enquiry subsequently.Other Important Updates 1. Lawyer Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court Circular Reducing Working Hours To 3 Due To COVID Case Title: Ghanshyam Upadhyay vs The High Court BombayA Mumbai based lawyer approached the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Bombay High Court's circular reducing its functioning in Mumbai to just three working hours a day owing to the rise in covid-19 cases in the city and state. It further seeks to enforce virtual hearings in all courts in the state. The PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India calls the SOP "unrealistic" and "unreasonable." He states that courts can be made functional through a virtual hearing without reducing the working hours. 2.Judges Protection Act: Plea In Bombay High Court Challenges 'Absolute Immunity' To Judges Even When Justice is 'Wilfully Denied' Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala vs Komal Singh RajputA petition filed in the Bombay High Court challenges Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act of 1985 that prevents civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for anything done in the course of his official or judicial duty. The plea alleges that the provision confers "absolute immunity to the judges even when they act maliciously and wilfully deny justice; on extraneous and corrupt considerations." According to Section 3 of the Act, no court can entertain civil, criminal proceedings against a judge for acts or words spoken by him while performing his duty as a judge. However, the Central or State Government, the Supreme Court of India or an High Court can take civil, criminal or departmental action against a judge. 3. 2008 Malegaon Blast Case: Accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit Seeks Ban On Media From Reporting ProceedingsCase Title: State of Maharashtra (Through NIA) vs Pragya Singh Thakur and OthersCase No: NIA Spl Case 1/2016 Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit, a prime accused in the case has sought in-camera hearings in the ongoing trial against him and others, including BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Purohit's plea comes soon after reports of nearly 16 crucial witnesses in the ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 10 To January 16, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags