Read Time: 28 minutes
1. [Court Managers] The Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra State Government to regularize the services of court managers in different districts in the state of Maharashtra, as directed by the Supreme Court in 2019. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, heard 17 petitions filed by different court managers working in various district courts of Maharashtra. The petitioners were appointed as managers according to the Recruitment Rules of 2011 for a term of 5 years, which was extended from time to time. However, they argued that their pay scale was not increased in accordance with the position they held. They contended that their pay should have been increased as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, which had not been implemented yet.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case title: Panchksharayya Mathapati vs UOI & Ors.
Click here to read more.
2. [Anil Parab] The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed an application to intervene in the petition filed by Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) leader Anil Parab’s petition to quash the FIR filed against him by the state government, which subsequently led the agency to register a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case against Anil Parab involves allegations related to the construction of a resort in a 'No Development Zone' in Dapoli. The Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change received a complaint regarding the same. Following the complaint, the Dapoli Police in Maharashtra filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Parab for cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The FIR accuses him of falsifying Gram Panchayat records related to the land where the resort was constructed. Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate initiated a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Anil Parab. Advocates Shardul Singh and Prerna Gandhi, representing Anil Parab, opposed the Enforcement Directorate's application to intervene in the case and sought time to file a reply.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak.
Case title: ED vs Anil Parab.
3. [Rakhi Sawant] Indian dancer, model, and actress Rakhi Sawant has approached the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR and defamation case filed against her by a model/actor. The defamation proceedings and the FIR were filed against Sawant for allegedly showing videos of the complainant in public and making defamatory remarks against the complainant. In her plea, Rakhi had alleged that the FIR was filed against her to frame her in a false and bogus case and is a publicity stunt used to gain notoriety and fame. “It is submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been filed by the informant in an attempt to harass the petitioner herein and to frame her in a false and a bogus case and is a publicity stunt used to gain notoriety and fame, by berating and attacking the reputation and modesty of the Petitioner. That the present FIR is malafide and is motivated with fraudulent intentions and has been registered by the informant with ulterior & revengeful motives to harass the Petitioner & pressurize her,” the plea reads.
Case title: Rakhi Sawant vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
4. [Rape Victim Testimony] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the testimony of the minor rape victim cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging an FIR. “In our conservative society, people remain back footed to lodge a report of sexual assault, which has many repercussions. Therefore, merely on the ground of delay, the reliable testimony of the victim cannot be discarded,” the order stated. In its order dated October 4, 2023, a division bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes stated that the mental condition of the victim should be considered, especially, when the head of the family is the culprit. “FIR itself bears explanation that out of fear of defamation, the report was not lodged initially. One should imagine the mental condition of the victim when the protector and head of the family itself is a culprit,” the order reads. The high court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Special POCSO Court convicting a father of sexually assaulting his own minor daughter.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case title: Shekhar Dhakhate vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. [Fire Safety] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up the State Government for not implementing the Fire Safety Rules. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor remarked that it was not the court's job to prompt the government for every single action. "This is not done. Are we sitting here to prompt you for every single action? Sometimes you need to do it. Is it our job? Committee recommendations are there since February 2023 and we are in December. What are you doing? Can there be anything more than this? There have been two deaths. You just have to frame appropriate regulations. The expert body consideration is with you and you have to only notify it," the bench said. The division bench also said that every day there is a fire incident in the city. "Fire incidents appear to be on the rise. Every other day in this city there is a fire incident and there are reports of people losing their lives," the bench said. The high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate and Social Activist Abha Singh seeking to implement the draft special rules and regulations for safety 2009 for fire safety buildings vulnerable to man-made disasters.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Abha Singh vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [Sadanand Kadam] On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court rejected the bail plea of Sadanand Kadam, a close aide of UBT Shiv Sena's Maharashtra Legislative Council (MLC) Anil Parab, in the money laundering case filed against him by the central agency. The single-judge bench of the high court, led by Justice MS Karnik, rejected Kadam's bail application. Kadam was arrested in March 2023 by the central agency, and he subsequently approached the Bombay High Court to challenge the order of the Special PMLA Court, which had previously rejected his bail application. The ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) was filed by the central agency based on a complaint lodged with the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change against Parab and Kadam. The complaint accused them of allegedly constructing a resort in Dapoli, which was located within a 'No Development Zone'. The allegation suggested that Kadam and Parab had an understanding wherein Kadam would secure the necessary permissions from the authorities for the development.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: Sadanand Kadam vs ED.
7. [Dream 11] The online fantasy sports platform Dream11 has withdrawn its petition from the Bombay High Court challenging the Rs. 1200 crore GST show-cause notice issued to the company. The show-cause tax notices, pertaining to tax evasion for the fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, were issued to the company. In response, the company contested the tax department's action and sought the production of documents for those years, arguing that these notices were time-barred. Additionally, the company contended that the GST council officially notified a 28% GST rate on fantasy platforms, effective from October 1, 2023, without providing retrospective effect. Despite this, Dream11 was arbitrarily subjected to the rate applicable from October 1, 2023. The Additional Government Pleader, Jyoti Chauvan, appearing for the State Government, informed the bench that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax had withdrawn the show-cause notice issued to Dream11.
Case title: Sporta Technology Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.
8. [Custody] The Bombay High Court recently denied custody of a three-year-old child to the father, noting that the allegations against him included violent and abusive conduct that was not in the best interest of the child. “A perusal of the custody petition filed by the respondent reveals that serious allegations are made against the petitioner, and all the allegations were about the violent and abusive conduct of the petitioner, which concern the safety of the child and can adversely impact his healthy and safe upbringing,” the order reads. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, was hearing a petition filed by the father of the child. The father was seeking custody of the child from his wife. The couple married in 2018 in New York after the birth of a child in March 2020. Following six months of marital discord, they relocated to Singapore. After surrendering their US green card, the mother moved to Thane in Maharashtra, two months later.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: ABC vs XYZ.
9. [Photographer] The Bombay High Court recently granted a stay on criminal proceedings against a photographer who faced charges for uploading objectionable content of a client on websites. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar was hearing a petition filed by the photographer challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Girgaon Court. The D.B. Marg Police Station had charged the professional photographer with offences under Sections 354 (c), 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66 (e) of the Information Technology Act. The complainant - dancer had alleged that the photographs were taken with their consent. However, the photographer uploaded the pictures on Pinterest and Pixabay, after which unknown individuals posted them on objectionable websites.
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Pashminu Shyam Mansukhani vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
10. [King George V Memorial Hospital] The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the notice issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to the King George V Memorial Hospital, a South Bombay Hospital, directing the removal of the iron fencing installed by the hospital management to prevent trespassers. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, heard a petition filed by the hospital challenging the notices issued by the corporation in December 2021 and March 2022 concerning the iron fencing erected by the hospital. The hospital, operated by a Charitable Trust, occupies a substantial tract of land measuring 36,300 sq mts. Advocate Dinesh Purandare, representing the petitioner, argued that the fencing was installed due to 24 out of the 36 staff quarters being under unauthorized occupation by retired staff members, their families, or even outsiders.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: King George V Memorial & Anr vs MCGM & Ors.
11. [Bye Elections] The Bombay High Court has sought a response from the Election Commission of India, questioning why it did not conduct by-elections for a Pune Lok Sabha Constituency within six months of the death of Member of Parliament Girish Bapat. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, heard a petition filed by Sughosh Joshi, a resident of Pune, seeking a direction from the court to the Election Commission to conduct by-elections. The petitioner had made a representation to the Chief Election Commissioner on September 21, 2023. Subsequently, upon encountering a news article titled "No Lok Sabha bypolls as MPs would have less than a year's term," the petitioner filed a Right to Information (RTI) application. The Election Commission of India (ECI) responded, stating that the returned candidate would have only three to four months of work as an MP, and conducting a by-election would also impact the preparatory activities for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Case title: Sughosh Joshi vs ECI.
12. [Deaths is State Hospitals] On Friday, the Bombay High Court criticized the Maharashtra State Government for not fully utilizing the budgetary allocation designated for the procurement of drugs and medical equipment. “If you have made a budgetary allocation, then it needs to be spent. If the budget is Rs 2, then only Rs 1.5 is spent. This is a new tendency these days where the money lies unspent,” the bench said. The bench remarked that appropriate steps should be taken to spend the allocated money because if it is not utilized, it gets lapsed at the cost of the healthcare system. “Though the Advocate General has stated that after the constitution of the State Procurement Authority, the process of procuring of drugs and medical equipment has gained pace. Thus, we expect adequate and appropriate steps to be taken to spend because if not used then it gets lapsed at the cost of the health care system,” the bench said. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was hearing a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered by the high court concerning deaths in state-run hospitals in Nanded and Chattrapti Shambhajinagar. The bench also observed that vacancies in key positions are likely to hamper services and facilities in hospitals, emphasizing the urgent need to fill all such vacancies.
Case title: High Court on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
