Read Time: 22 minutes
1. [Sanatan Sanstha Not A Banned Organization] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to an accused while observing that ‘Sanatan Sanstha’ is not a banned or terrorist organization or a frontal organization of any banned terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata
Cause Title: Liladhar Vijay Lodhi vs State of Maharashtra
Click here to read more
2. [Money Cannot Compensate For Physical Harm Done After Accident] The Bombay High Court upheld compensation of Rs. 3.40 lakh awarded to a man whose right arm was amputated after a motor vehicle accident while observing that money cannot repair the physical frame of a person disabled in an accident. The high court observed that in such cases it is well settled that a man is not compensated for physical injury but for the loss which he suffers as a result of injury.
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
Cause Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Toufic Ahemed & Anr.
3. [Plea For Action Against Ex-Governor For Statements Against Shivaji Maharaj & Mahatma Phule] The Bombay High Court dismissed a plea filed against the ex-Governor of Maharashtra Bhagat Singh Koshyari and Bhartiya Janta Party's Member of Parliament Sudhanshu Trivedi for their remarks against Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj, Jytoiba Phule, and Savitribai Phule. The high court said that the statements were reflections of the perception and opinion of the speaker and were made to persuade the audience.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Abhay Waghase
Cause Title: Rama Arvind Katarnaware vs State of Maharashtra Ors
4. [Plea Seeking Investigation Against Parambir Singh In Antilla Bomb Scare Case] The high court dismissed the plea seeking directions for an investigation against former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Parambir Singh in connection with the Antilia bomb blast scare incident that occurred on February 25, 2021. The bench said noted that the averments made in the petition were hearsay in nature.
Bench: Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata
Cause Title: Parshuram Sharma vs State of Maharashtra
5. [Mushtaq Nadiadwala's Plea On Whereabouts of His Children] The court asked producer Mushtaq Nadiadwala to produce before the court the address of his wife in Pakistan in the plea filed by him seeking the whereabouts of his children. The producer sought assistance from the Union of India for getting back his children from Pakistan.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh
Cause Title: Mushtaq Nadiadwala vs UOI & Ors
6. [Dismissal of Mamata Banerjee's Appeal In National Anthem Disrespect Case] The court dismissed the appeal filed by the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee against the order of the sessions court whereby the magistrate court had been directed to consider issuing fresh summons to the Chief Minister. The high court said there was no error of jurisdiction nor patent illegality in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
Cause Title: Mamata Banerjee - The Hon'ble Chief Minister of West Bengal vs. Adv. Vivekanand Dayanand Gupta - Secretary Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and State
7. [Sometimes Cats Sit On The Judge's Dais: Bombay High Court] While hearing a plea for designated feeding areas for stray dogs in housing societies, the court said that once animals are looked after in a specific area, they tend to recognize and return to that area. The bench highlighted that sometimes even cats in the high court building sit on the judges' dais.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice RN Laddha
Cause Title: Paromita Purthan vs BMC & Ors.
8. [Anushka Sharma's Sales Tax Due Plea] The Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax in Mumbai has in an affidavit submitted before the Bombay High Court that Anushka Sharma, an actress, and producer, is the first owner of the copyright in every artistic performance for which she receives consideration. Anushka Sharma in her plea had stated that the assessing officer in his order had stated that receipts of Sharma were not only on account of services but also on the transfer of the performer’s right under the Copyright Act. She had contended that the performer’s rights are not copyrights and they are not capable of being transferred to any other person.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja
Cause Title: Anushka Sharma vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9. [Interim Protection To AAP Leader Booked In SC/ST Case] The high court granted interim relief to Mumbai president of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Preeti Sharma Menon and another member of the political party and put a hold on the investigation against them for four weeks in a First Information Report (FIR) filed under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
Bench: Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Milind Sathaye
Cause Title: Preeti Sharma Menon & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
10. [Criminal Proceedings Against Bollywood Actor Salman Khan] The high court quashed the criminal proceedings against Bollywood actor Salman Khan for allegedly intimidating a journalist in 2019. The journalist had accused Khan of assaulting him and seizing his phone while the actor was cycling on the streets of Mumbai. The Magistrate Court had found enough evidence to summon Khan, who then approached the High Court and obtained a stay order.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre
Cause Title: Salman Khan@ Abdul Rashid Salim Salman Khan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
11. [Nawazuddin Siddiqu's Plea On Whereabouts of His Children] The high court asked Bollywood Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui, his wife, and their children to appear in person in the judge's chamber on April 3, 2023. Nawazuddin Siddiqui has approached the Bombay High Court seeking the whereabouts of his children who are in the custody of his wife. Siddique stated that his estranged wife is a citizen of UAE and he had received emails from the school wherein he had been informed that his children are missing school and will be rusticated.
Cause Title: Nawazuddin Siddiqui vs Zainab Siddiqui
12. [100 Crore Defamation Suit Filed By Nawazuddin Siddiqui] The Bollywood actor has filed a defamation suit against his brother Shamasuddin Siddique and his wife Anjana Kishore Pandey aka Zainab and Alliya Siddiue and has sought Rs. 100 crores from both of them for defaming him. The plea stated that both defendants hired paid media to make false, defamatory, and baseless allegations against the actor. The plea stated that the actor’s brother made comments on social media that he was going to disclose confidential information about him.
Bench: Justice RI Chagla
Cause Title: Nawazuddin Nawabuddin Siddique vs Shamasuddin Siddique & Anr.
13. [Defamatory News Against Wife In Newspaper] The Bombay High Court observed that "the reputation of a wife got damaged because of defamatory news published by her husband in a daily newspaper and she was embarrassed before her peers, colleagues, and co-workers. The observations were made when the court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against a family court order allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage based on cruelty.
Bench: Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye
Cause Title: XYZ vs. ABC
14. [Ghatkopar Custodial Death Case] The Bombay High Court recently directed framing of murder charges against accused polie officers. The deceased’s mother alleged that three police officers, Sub-Inspector Sanjay Khedekar, Head Constable Raghunath Kodekar, and Police Naik SayajiThombare, had severely beaten her son while taking him away from their home around 4:00 a.m. for an investigation of some matter. The high court was hearing a case related to the death of 23-year-old Altaf Kadir Shaikh at Ghatkopar police station in September 2009.
Bench: Justice Praskash D Naik
Cause Title: Mehrunnisa Kadir Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
15. [Bombay High Court To Get New Complex At Bandra] The Maharashtra government recently informed the Bombay High Court that it will allocate 30.16 acres of land in Bandra for the construction of a new high court building. Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf told the court that a formal government resolution (GR) on the matter would be issued soon and that a memorandum had already been signed with the public works department (PWD). The court was hearing a plea filed by one Ahmed Abdi seeking action against State government authorities for non-compliance with a 2019 high court order on the land allotment.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne
Cause Title: Ahmad Abdi vs State of Maharashtra
16. [Amruta Fadnavis Extortion Case] The high court reserved the orders in a plea filed by Anil Jaisinghani who is accused in the complaint filed by Amruta Fadnavis, wife of Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Anil Jaisinghani, a bookie who is accused of threatening to release audio and video clips that purportedly show Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis accepting favors, had moved the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR against him. Jaisinghani's daughter, Aniksha Singhani, is also accused in the case registered on a complaint by Amruta Fadnavis.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice PD Naik
Cause Title: Anil Jaisinghani vs State of Maharashtra
17. [Transgender Person Under DV Act] The high court has held that a transgender who has performed surgery to change gender to a female will be considered an aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act. The court further said that the definition of aggrieved person should be interpreted in the best possible manner in tune with the object and purpose of the Act.
Cause Title: ABC vs XYZ
18. [Single-Line Reasoning Orders] The Bombay High Court recently frowned upon a sessions judge for giving single-line reasoning to quash a detailed order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The high court said that single-line reasoning is not expected from senior judges like district judges while criticizing the sessions judge for erroneously observing without giving any reasons that the magistrate had not properly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective in a domestic violence case.
Bench: Justice SG Mehare
Please Login or Register
