Read Time: 22 minutes
1. [Injury To Birds] The Bombay High Court has refused to quash the FIR filed against a man for cutting a tree along with the bird nests and injuring the birds. A division bench of the high court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak was hearing a petition filed by a man who was booked under the Indian Penal Code, Wildlife Protection Act, and Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act. On 12th May 2014, Puja Sakpal, founder of YODA (NGO namely Youth Organisation in Defence of Animals), noticed that trees in the Bandra area were being destroyed, which are habitat and nesting grounds for several birds over the years. Sakpal, in his complaint, stated that a specific number of birds, along with their fledglings, have fallen to the ground and become ensnared by nets. Numerous birds have been discovered injured, and the felled trees have rendered many birds homeless during their nesting period. On May 13th, Sakpal discovered that branches of trees, along with the nests on them and injured birds, had been discarded in the vicinity of Petit School. Approximately 40-50 injured birds were scattered in the area around the school.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak.
Case title: Amit Satish Dhutia vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Click here to read more.
2. [Potholes] The Bombay High Court questioned on Tuesday whether the roads in Mumbai would be shut down because the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) was busy with election poll duties and the Maratha reservation survey. A division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, remarked after the corporation failed to file its affidavit in a petition concerning potholes in the city of Mumbai. “So the roads will be shut down in Mumbai? What kind of excuses are you giving? Some of your class C staff are being sent for survey and election duties and therefore BMC cannot function and not file an affidavit? What is happening?” the bench questioned. The remarks were made in a contempt petition filed by Ruju Thakker against the corporation for not implementing the high court order of 2018, which directed the corporation to fill the potholes in the city. During the last hearing in December, the high court had directed the corporation to file an affidavit in response to the contempt petition filed by Thakker.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ruju Thakker vs State of Maharashtra.
3. [Rahul Gandhi] The Bombay High Court has extended the interim relief granted to Congress MP Rahul Gandhi from appearing before the magistrate court in a defamation case filed against him for his remarks against Prime Miniter Narendra Modi in 2018. A single-judge bench of Justice NJ Jamadar extended the interim relief after the advocate appearing for the complainant was not available. The high court has extended the interim relief granted to Gandhi till February 26, 2024. The complaint filed against the Congress leader relates to a remark made by him during a speech in 2018. Gandhi had allegedly called the Prime Minister "Commander in Thief" in his speech referring to the Rafale Deal. The present criminal proceedings were initiated against Gandhi in August 2019 by the metropolitan magistrate when a BJP leader filed a complaint against Gandhi stating that his remark against Modi was a direct allegation against the BJP members and Indian Citizens who are connected to Modi.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal.
4. [Prisoner’s dignity] The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a woman booked in an NDPS case for 2 months allowing her to deliver her baby. A single judge bench of Justice NJ Jamadar was hearing an application filed by one Alfiya Faisal Shaikh who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sought bail on medical grounds as she is carrying an advanced pregnancy. The Narcotics Control Bureau seized 5 kg. of “white colour substance” purported to be Mephedrone (MD) on 9th June 2023 from one Shamiya Khan. It was alleged that Alfiya and her husband had supplied the said substance to Shamiya. After a search operation was conducted by the NCB at Alfiya’s residence she voluntarily disclosed that she had concealed a packet containing 15 kg. MD on the second floor of the said building behind the door, near the lift. The officials along with public witnesses visited the spot and recovered the substance. At the time of arrest, Afliya was two months pregnant after which she filed an application before the Special NDPS Judge for release on bail which came to be rejected against which she filed an appeal before the high court.
Case title: Alfiya Faisal Shaikh vs UOI & Anr.
5. [498A] The Bombay High Court recently observed that mere taunting does not constitute mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. “..mere taunting of above nature would not amount to harassment or mental cruelty. Solitary instance of husband beating with stick is stated but even its details are not given as to when the same took place. No steps are taken thereafter to question accused or to give understanding to the accused. Consequently, evidence of brother and mother does not disclose commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court at Aurangabad, led by Justice Abhay Waghase, heard an appeal filed by the Sessions Court convicting a husband, his mother, and his brother for abetting suicide under Section 306 and cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The couple was married in 1993. The wife's father claimed that his daughter was treated properly during the initial months of the marriage. However, he alleged that subsequently, the husband, his mother, and his brother began taunting her about her cooking and other household duties. It was also alleged that the husband asked the wife to get Rs. 10,000 from her father. In May 1994, the woman was found dead, allegedly due to self-immolation.
Bench: Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title: Narendra Sahebrao Patil & ors vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [FIR against student] The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against a 20-year-old student who was charged with allegedly damaging POP idols and killing a stray dog while rashly driving his car. A division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar, on January 16, quashed the FIR against the 20-year-old. He was booked under Sections 279, 336, and 427 of the IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The engineering student approached the Bombay High Court in January 2023 to seek the quashing of the FIR filed against him after an amicable resolution was reached with the owner of the PoP idols. The court was informed that the student had paid Rs. 200,000 to the owner for the damage caused to the property. The owner of the PoP idols expressed no objection to quashing the FIR against the student.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Daxay Sachin Sanghavi vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [Killer Soup Series] Apparel manufacturer ‘Killer Jeans’ has filed a trademark infringement suit against the Netflix series 'Killer Soups' in the Bombay High Court. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited, the owner of the Killer Jeans trademark, has sought damages of Rs. 25 crores from Netflix in its infringement suit. In its plaint, KKCL claimed to have registered the trademark for Killer Jeans in 2001 and 2004. Additionally, the plea stated that upon discovering the trailer of the series 'Killer Soups' on Netflix, KKCL sent a notice to the streaming platform and the producer of the series, MacGuffin. However, after receiving no response to the notice, Netflix wrote to KKCL, stating that it was inquiring into the allegations of KKCL after which there was no response.
Case title: Kewal Kiran Clothing Ltd v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP & Ors.
8. [Mahalaxmi Race Course] On Thursday, the Bombay High Court observed that citizens should have confidence in the governance process, regardless of the party in power. “We are not saying there is a failure of governance. There is a perception of governance that drives these petitions. We want to go the opposite direction and say, you must trust the governance process. This has nothing to do with the ruling party or party in power. As citizens or courts, we need to have a certain level of confidence in the governance process, which must be kept alive. There may well be 10,000 reasons for growing mistrust, we do not want to feed that beast, we cannot,” the court said. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, was hearing petitions challenging a December 6, 2023, communication from the government proposing the development of an international theme park/public garden in the Mahalaxmi Race Course in Mumbai. The communication related to a General Meeting involving Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, the Commissioner of BMC, and Office Bearers of the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC), allegedly convened by the Chief Minister.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9. [Rs. 144 Crore GST Fraud] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of evading GST for Rs. 144 crores, noting that the accused had not committed a heinous crime like murder. “In the light of the above facts, detention of the applicant in jail is not required. The applicant is not involved in a heinous crime like murder or terrorism. The basic rule is, ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’. The allegations of serious financial impropriety are levelled against the applicant,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of the high court at Nagpur presided over by Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke, heard a bail application filed by a man accused of obtaining GST registration using fictitious documents and never engaging in any business activity from the registered premises. The allegations included the man committing tax fraud of Rs. 144.65 crores by availing admissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 20.14 crores and passing on admissible ITC of Rs. 17.73 crores. The counsel for the applicant argued that the officials did not follow the provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Bench: Justice Urmila Joahi Phalke.
Case title: Rahul Kamalkumar Jain vs Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence.
Please Login or Register
