Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 418 – 427] 1. Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 418 2. Surendra Murlidhar Kopulwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 419 3. Muzaffar Manzoor Kadri v. State Govt. of Goa and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420 4. Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421 5. Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422 6. The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423 7. Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424 8. Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425 9. Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426 10. Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427Reports/Judgments 1. Bombay High Court Directs Son, Daughter-In-Law To Vacate Their 88-Yr-Old Mother's Flat, Pay Monthly Maintenance Case Title: Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 418 The Bombay High Court upheld an order of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal directing a man to pay monthly maintenance as well as handover a flat to his 88-year-old mother. The court, in a writ petition challenging the tribunal's order, held that the petitioners had no legal right to the flat and they cannot evict the mother to take exclusive advantage of the same. "If the petitioners are not maintaining respondent no.3-mother and are creating a nuisance and emotional disturbances to her, the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated", the court stated. The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha reduced the maintenance amount as it was not in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (Act). 2. Bombay High Court Grants Caste Certificate Using Native Place's Name & Language Case Title: Surendra Murlidhar Kopulwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 419 The Bombay High Court granted a Scheduled Tribe certificate to an Amravati resident based on pre-constitutional entries mentioning his native place's name instead of the name of his caste at various places. A bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare set aside the caste scrutiny committee's order that had cited confusion in the petitioner's documents while invalidating his caste certificate. While the petitioner claimed to be from the 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe, his ancestors' documents stated their caste as being 'Telangi,' 'Telgu' and 'Telgu Manwar.' However, the Bombay High Court said there was no confusion as the Mennewar's were mainly found in Telangana and spoke Telugu. The bench further observed that the scrutiny committee had failed to take vital information into consideration when it decided the petitioner's case. It was referring to the fact that all pre-constitutional entries sufficiently supported his claim of belonging to the Manewar ST. 3. State Bound To Provide Reasonable Facilities For Burial & Cremation, There Must Be No Discrimination: Bombay High Court Case title: Muzaffar Manzoor Kadri v. State Govt. of Goa and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420 The Bombay High Court observed that the state and local authorities have a duty to provide cemeteries, burial grounds, electrical crematorium etc. to the public. "there is a duty cast upon the local authorities and the State to provide reasonable facilities for the burial and cremation of the departed. These are primary duties. These are essential duties. These duties cannot be delayed or denied. At least in discharging these duties, there ought to be no red tape or sustained inaction. In particular, there ought to be not even a hint of discrimination", Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande of the Goa bench held. 4. Police Station Not a Prohibited Place Under Official Secrets Act: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Booked For Shooting Video Inside PS Case title: Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421 The Bombay High Court observed that the definition of 'prohibited place' in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is exhaustive but police station has not been included as one of the establishments or places under it. Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki Menezes of the Nagpur bench observed this while quashing an FIR against a man who was booked under Section 3 of the Act for recording a video inside a police station in 2018. 5. Misled By Claimant's Counsel, Bombay High Court Apologises To MACT Assistant Registrar For Making Strong Remarks Case Title: Girish...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags