Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: January 15, 2023 To January 21, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 20 - 33]Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr v. BITS 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 24Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 25State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 26Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 27Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 29UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited v. Extra Tech World and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 30Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. UoI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 31Sunil s/o late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 32Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33Reports/JudgmentsMerely Commenting About Lack Of Woman's Cooking Skills Not 'Cruelty' U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20The Bombay High Court ruled that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.“In the instant case, the only allegation levelled against these Petitioners is that they had commented that Respondent No.2 does not know how to cook. Such comment does not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”A division bench comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice N.R. Borkar quashed an FIR registered under section 498A against two brothers-in-law for allegedly commenting that the complainant did not know how to cook.The court observed that petty quarrels do not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498A. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.Banks/NBFCs Not Obliged To Initiate Restructuring Process Before Classifying MSME Account As NPA Sans Application From MSME: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 21The Bombay High Court held that banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) are not obligated to initiate restructuring process before classifying accounts of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in the absence of any application from the MSMEs seeking restructuring.A division bench of Justice BP Collabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye held that notification dated May 29, 2015, under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) allowing for restructuring only applies when MSMEs approach the banks/NBFCs.The court dismissed a group of writ petitions challenging the classification of the accounts of petitioner MSMEs, who have taken financial assistance from banks and NBFCs, as NPAs under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The challenge was on the ground that the respondent banks/NBFCs did not adhere to the procedure for restructuring outlined in the notification before classifying the MSMEs as NPAs. Aviation Safety Norms Can't Be Relaxed For Public Authority: Bombay High Court Refuses Height Relaxation For MHADA High Rise Near Mumbai AirportCase Title: Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority v. Airport Authority of India & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 22The Bombay High Court rejected Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority's (MHADA) writ petition seeking relaxation of height restrictions for a 40-floor building near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) in Mumbai.A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata observed that aviation safety has nothing to do with the identity of the developer, and no relaxation of civil aviation safety norms can be granted merely because the project is proposed by a public authority.Bombay High Court Dismisses 'Unsavory' PIL Seeking To Reduce MLAs' Salaries And PerksCase Title: Forum For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Government of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 23The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking reduction in perks and salaries of MLAs in Maharashtra, citing a previous judgment wherein it was held that this is a policy decision outside the domain of the court.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: January 15, 2023 To January 21, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags