Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: November 26, 2023 To December 03, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 547 - 560]Savita Shrimant Ghule v. Sangita Bibhishan Sanap & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 547AjitSingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 548Rohit s/o Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 549L&T Finance Limited v. Diamond Projects Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 550Anandrao G Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 551Vishwas S/o Pitambar Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 552The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 553Shonali Kedar Dighe v. Ashita Tham and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 554Anuradha Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 555Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. SE Oil Products Pvt Ltd. & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 556High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 557Ashok Dayabhai Shah And Ors. v. Securities And Exchange Board of India And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 558Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 559Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond v. M/s. Anna 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 560Reports/JudgmentsMaha Village Panchayats Act | No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Valid Sans Formal Proposal & Seconding If Passed By 3/4th Majority: Bombay HCCase Title: Savita Shrimant Ghule v. Sangita Bibhishan Sanap & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 547The Bombay High Court held that a No Confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch would be valid even without being formally proposed and seconded as long as it was passed by the required majority and fulfilling all requirements under section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.Justice Madhav Jamdar upheld the No Confidence Motion passed against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ukkadgaon in Solapur District observing that it was passed meeting all statutory requirements. “the requirement of Rule 17 in the matter of proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirement of Section 35(3) of the said Act as the said infraction does not affect the merits of the case”, the court held.Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 provides that a member who has given notice of a motion shall either state that he does not wish to move the motion, or formally move the motion, after the motion is duly seconded. The court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch against an order dated October 13, 2023, wherein the Collector, Solapur, dismissed their Dispute Applications challenging the validity of the Motion of No Confidence.Pleadings Vague And Unsubstantiated: Bombay High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Protection From 'Unsafe Water Bodies'Case Title: AjitSingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 548The Bombay High Court refused to hear a plea by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade seeking directions for appropriate measures to safeguard people from waterfalls and water bodies, claiming that every year around 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives to 'unsafe water bodies' in Maharashtra. A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor observed –“On being explained that the averments made in the PIL petition are unsubstantiated, vague and general in nature, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the PIL petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition. In view of the aforesaid, the PIL petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if the petitioner is so advised, with appropriate data, information, law and study.”Accordingly, the lawyer withdrew the plea.On a query by the bench, the petitioner's lawyer had claimed that he had gathered the information that 1500-2000 people lost their lives to unsafe water bodies each year from newspapers and social media posts. He contended that the state government be directed to take steps to ensure the safety of people who visit such water bodies.Victim Or Guardian In POCSO Case Not Obligated To Appear Before Court In Appeals And Application For Sentence Suspension: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Rohit s/o Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 549The Bombay High Court clarified that the child victim of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or their guardians are not obligated to appear before the court in appeals or applications for suspension of sentence by the convict.Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench observed that confusion has arisen among advocates, investigating agencies, and court officials regarding the necessity of the presence of a child victim, through parents or guardians, in appeals under Section 374 or applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.The court emphasized that the child's or the guardian's...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: November 26, 2023 To December 03, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags