Best Of 2022- Important Judgments Of Bombay High Court

LiveLaw reported 527 judgements from Bombay High Court in 2022. Here are some of the important decisions:Can't Decide Whether A Film's Material Denigrates A Community Or Not Without A Challenge To Censor Certificate: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50 There can be no prohibition on a film's exhibition in the absence of a challenge to the censor certificate issued by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), the Bombay High Court held refusing any reliefs in a clutch of petitions against the movie Gangubai Kathiawadi which was due for release on February 25. "The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest," a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed dismissing two PILs and disposing of a petition. Child Born Out Of POCSO Crime A "Victim" As Defined Under Section 2(wa) CrPC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55 Reducing the life sentence awarded to a rape convict to 10 years, the Bombay High Court directed him to pay compensation to the child born out of his illicit acts observing that the baby was also "victim" as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The victim had not only been abandoned by the appellant but also by her real mother(PW 1). They did not stop there but had put the life of the newly born child into jeopardy by sending him in an Orphanage. In view of Section 2(w a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. The child born to the victim is indeed her legal heir and also a victim in view of the definition of "victim" and therefore, he must be adequately compensated for as it was the appellant who is responsible for bringing him in this world and then abandoning him at the mercy of an Orphanage. Social Worker Not Exempt From Exceptions U/S 8 RTI Act, Must Demonstrate Bona Fides In Larger Public Interest: Bombay High Court Case Title: Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 78 Claims of being a "social activist" are not enough to get information under the RTI Act, the application must show details sought are bona fide in larger public interest, and without causing "unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Bombay High Court has held. "The logic seems to be this: since Goyal (appellant) is a self-proclaimed activist, the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act will not apply to him. That is unacceptable," the court said. NEET-UG | Students Domiciled In Maharashtra But Passing 10th/ 12th Standard From Outside Not Eligible To Avail State Quota: Bombay High Court Case Title: Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83 The Bombay High Court held that a medical aspirant domiciled in Maharashtra, but having passed 10th or 12th standard from outside the state shall not be eligible to avail the benefit under State quota for the purpose of NEET-UF examination. "The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently is that (i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standard from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and (ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra. Exception is if he has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also domicile of the Maharashtra," the Court said. Central Govt's Permission Not Necessary For Development Once Collector Opines Land 'Not A Forest': Bombay HC Case Title: Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 87 Once the Collector (even in a draft speaking order) opines that a privately owned land parcel is not a "private forest," the Central Government's permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is unnecessary to exploit the land for development, the Bombay High Court held. A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav observed that the Central Act would apply only when a forest land is to be used for non-forest purposes, like when a project is to be set up on the forest land, and particulars of the proposed project are to be set out. Adopted Son Entitled To Take Adoptive Mother's Caste Even If Biological Father's Records Not Available: Bombay High Court Case Title: Dr. Sonal ...

Best Of 2022- Important Judgments Of Bombay High Court

Sharmeen Hakim & Amisha Shrivastava

Tags