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

Nominal Index [Citations 378 – 389] 1. Jyotsna D'souza v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 378 2. NRC Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 379 3. Sandip Sarjerao Sule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 380 4. Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381 5. Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382 6. Rutuja Ramesh Latke v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 383 7. G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 384 8. Sushilabai w/o Vaijinath Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 385 9. Pandurang Sitaram Choudhari (Borse) & Ors. v. Sunil Pralhad Choudhari & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 386 10. Shubham Vijay Patil and Ors. v. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 387 11. Sachin Laxman Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 388 12. Sm. Mina v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 389 Reports/Judgments 1. Objectionable Pictures Annexed With Petitions Invade Parties' Privacy: Bombay HC Advises Advocates To Exercise Caution Case Title: Jyotsna D'souza v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 378 The Bombay High Court warned all advocates against annexing objectionable pictures to petitions filed in the High Court, citing the invasion of privacy. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Justice SM Modak imposed cost of Rs. 25, 000 on the petitioner's advocate who had annexed pictures to the petition. "We expect, all lawyers/Advocates to exercise some discretion and proportion whilst annexing the photographs which are highly objectionable. Annexing such photographs certainly invades upon the privacy of the parties," the bench observed. 2. Adani's IBC Acquisition: Bombay HC Directs MSEDCL To Provide New Electricity Connection Without Clearance of National Rayon Co.'s Past Dues Worth 28Cr Case Title: NRC Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 379 The Bombay High Court directed the State Electricity Department to provide a new electricity connection to National Rayon Corporation (NRC) without seeking clearance of NRC's "Rs. 28 crore pending dues." A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse prima facie agreed with NRC's argument that MSEDCL's didn't file a claim before the Resolution Professional in time, therefore, its claim for past dues stands extinguished. Under the IBC, the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan on July 3, 2019, however MSEDCL put in its claim first in October 2019. The bench rejected MSEDCL's argument that it was the Resolution Professional's responsibility to include its claims while preparing the resolution plan citing pending litigation between NRC and MSEDCL. 3. S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC Bats For Making Offence Compoundable In Maharashtra, Says Minimum 10 Quashing Petitions Are Filed Everyday Case Title: Sandip Sarjerao Sule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 380 The Bombay High Court urged the Union of India to consider Maharashtra's bill to make domestic violence cases (498A IPC) compoundable with the permission of the concerned court citing hardships caused to innumerable couples who are constrained to approach the High Court for quashing. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and SM Modak asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to take up the issue with the concerned Ministry at the earliest. 4. [Maharashtra Protection Of Depositors Act] Seriousness Of Accusation No Reason To Deny Bail To Undertrial If Half Sentence Served: High Court Case title: Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381 The Bombay High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of crores of rupees under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, observing that gravity of his offence cannot be a reason to deny him benefit of section 436-A of the CrPC. Relying on SC's judgement in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Justice Bharati Dangre observed, "I do not think that the seriousness of the accusation would deny him the benefit flowing from the said section, when his case squarely falls within sub-section (1) of Section 436A, on having undergone more than half of the period of maximum imprisonment." 5. Bombay High Court Slams BMC For Insensitivity, Directs Developer To Vacate Land Reserved For Nair Hospital Extension Case title: Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382 The Bombay High Court recently directed Rubberwala Developers Private Limited to ...

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

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags