Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [AC In Bar Room] The Maharashtra Government on Monday told the Bombay High Court that air conditioners will be installed in the advocates bar rooms in the high court premises by 31st December. “Along with the said Government Resolution dated 3rd October 2023, a chart has also been submitted, which is duly signed by the Dy. Engineer (Electrical) PWD, Mumbai according to which the work of installation of air conditioners would be completed by 31st December 2023,” the order reads. Advocate General Birendra Saraf also informed the bench a government resolution was passed on 3rd October 2023 whereby an amount of Rs.3,76,37,000 has been sanctioned for the installation of the air conditioners. The division bench of the high court therefore proceeded to dispose of the petition. The high court was hearing the petition filed by Five former Presidents of the Advocates Association of Western India, including four senior advocates seeking the installation of air conditioning systems in the Advocates Bar Rooms in the high court.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Shirish Gupte & ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Click here to read more.
2. [Air Pollution] The Bombay High Court on Monday issued various directions to the civic authorities and the State Government to take measures in view of the rising pollution and AQI in the City of Mumbai. The division bench of the high court was hearing the suo moto Public Interest Litigation in light of the poor air condition in Mumbai. During the course of the hearing, the division bench also remarked that the guidelines and action plans were only on paper but there was no progress on the ground. “Let us agree that this is not adversarial Litigation. The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has to be vigilant. This is not confined to Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation(BMC) alone…all municipal corporations. Everybody has to come together. Theoretically on paper looks like everything is in place but on ground, nothing is done,” the bench said.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Girish Kulkarni.
Case title: High Court on its own motion.
3. [Naresh Goyal] The Bombay High Court has rejected the habeas corpus petition filed by Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Rs. 538 Crore Canara Bank Loan Fraud Case. The division bench stated that Goyal's petition could not be entertained by the high court and he could pursue other statutory remedies available to him under the law. Goyal stands accused of money laundering involving a loan of Rs. 538 crores obtained from Canara Bank. Naresh Goyal is accused of diverting funds borrowed from Canara Bank to his family members in the form of salaries. The ED initiated proceedings against Goyal based on an FIR filed by the CBI, which was prompted by a complaint lodged by Canara Bank. The bank's complaint was filed following an external audit conducted for the period spanning 2011 to 2019.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Naresh Goyal vs ED.
4. [Bail to Maulana] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a Maulana who was booked for performing a marriage of a minor. The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising heard a bail application filed by the Maulana, who was accused of solemnizing a forced marriage of a minor in October 2022. The Maulana faced charges under various sections, including 363, 366, 366A, 370, 376, 376(3), and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. At the time of the incident, the girl was 17 years old when the forced marriage took place. The Additional Public Prosecutor, PH Gaikwad, argued that the Maulana conducted the marriage with full knowledge that the victim was a minor. He further stated that the applicant was aware that the marriage was being performed illegally.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: Fahad Farooque Memon vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [Roads in Mumbai] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised concerns about there being no uniform and single authority for administering and maintaining the roads in the city of Mumbai. "Ultimately no one is being punished. What we propose is that on the next date grab important documents so that we need not go through the entire document. Suggest some measures that could be ordered by the court. One concern is that there is no uniform authority. They should come up with some authority. In case of overlapping jurisdiction ultimately...," the court said. The division bench of the high court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Ruju Thakker who alleged that the state government was in violation of a court order passed during the Public Interest Litigation of 2018 wherein the government was directed to fill the potholes in the city. Following the high court's order the collector formed a committee of Additional Collector of Thane, Deputy Commisioner of Traffic Police Thane, Regional Transport Department, Deputy Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation, Sub Divisional Officer, and Executive Engineer PWD department. The collector in its affidavit concluded that the accident of the motorcyclists did not take place due to the potholes on the road.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ruju Thakker vs State of Maharashtra.
5. [Guardian] The Bombay High Court has recently appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband, who was in a vegetative state. The division bench of the high court was hearing a petition filed by the wife, requesting recognition as the legal guardian of her husband. The husband sustained a severe brain injury in a household accident on March 14, 2017. The wife argued that this injury has left her husband significantly impaired, with 83% disability, and he has been bedridden for over five years. She also stated that her husband’s recovery has been extremely slow, and he relies on others for all his needs. She explained that her husband’s condition had deteriorated to the point where he had entered a vegetative state, and his recovery was extremely challenging. In these circumstances, she found it difficult to manage and allocate the necessary funds for his medical treatment and their two minor daughters’ education.
Bench: Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye.
Case title: ABC vs UOI.
6. [Bail To Mother] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman booked for allegedly drowning her four-month-old daughter in a water tank in 2021. The single judge bench of the high court comprising Justice MS Karnik was hearing a bail application moved by the woman booked for the murder of her child. According, to the police the applicant who had an 8-year-old daughter was pressured to give birth to a male child by her in-laws. After she gave birth to the second daughter she was harassed by the family due to which she put her baby in the water and closed the lid. Advocate Satyam Nimbalkar added that the police had recorded a statement from a homoeopathy professional that her husband used to visit him to seek medicines to ensure a male child.
Case title: Sapna Magdoom vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [Demolition During Diwali] The Bombay High Court has requested all the local and planning authorities to not take action and stay all the demolition during the upcoming Diwali. The division bench was hearing a petition filed by Commander Baldevsingh Bhagwansingh Bhatti who is a retired navy officer. Bhatti in his petition had challenged the notice dated 31st October 2023 issued by the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ordering a demolition of the Petitioner’s farmhouse structure at Village Kurvande, District Mawal, Pune. Senior Advocate Anil Singh appearing for Bhatti submitted that points out that the structure has been in existence since 1996.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Commander Baldevsingh Bhagwansingh Bhatti vs Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority.
8. [Raj Thackeray] The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR filed against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) Raj Thackeray filed against him in connection with proceedings initiated during the 2010 civic elections. The division bench had reserved the judgment on the 13th of October 2023. The MNS Leader had approached the high court after the Maharashtra State Election Commission had issued a show cause notice to him followed by a charge sheet filed by the police against him for violating the model code of conduct during the 2010 civic elections. The allegation against Thackeray was that he had exceeded the allowed duration of stay within the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation area, thus violating the model code of conduct.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh.
Case title: Raj Thackeray Vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Fire Crackers] The Bombay High Court, on Friday, modified its earlier order, allowing the bursting of firecrackers between 8 pm – 10 pm instead of 7 pm – 10 pm, thereby restricting the period for bursting crackers to only two hours. The division bench of the high court was hearing a suo moto public interest litigation registered in view of the deteriorating Air Quality Index in the city of Mumbai. The modification to the timing of bursting firecrackers was made by the high court in view of the Supreme Court’s order in Arjun Gopal vs Union of India. In the said case, the apex court had allowed the bursting of firecrackers only for 2 hours between 8 pm to 10 pm across India. After Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the bench that the Air Quality Index (AQI) had improved, the bench attributed this improvement to the recent rainfall and said "Thanks to the Rain". The reference was made to the rain in the city the previous night, which contributed to the enhancement of the AQI.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Girish Kulkarni.
10. [Sheezan Khan] On Friday, the Bombay High Court declined to quash the FIR filed against TV actor Sheezan Khan. He was booked for abetting the suicide of his co-star Tunisha Sharma. The division bench of the high court stated that the investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of Sheezan Khan. Khan approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Khan was booked after the 21-year-old TV actress Tunisha Sharma was found hanging on the sets of a Hindi serial in Vasai. According to the prosecution, Tunisha was emotionally and romantically involved with Sheezan. After their breakup, she suffered from panic attacks. When she approached Sheezan again and he refused to continue the relationship, Tunisha hung herself on the set in Vasai.
Case title: Sheezan Mohd. Khan vs State of Maharashtra.
11. [Rs. 15K Cost] The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 on a woman who sought direction for the family court to decide her execution application within a month. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, heard a petition filed by the woman who had obtained an order from the Royal High Courts of London in October 2021. The woman had filed an execution application before the family court to execute the order passed by the Royal High Court. The execution application had been pending before the family court since 2022, despite her custody plea being decided by the London court in six months. Consequently, the woman approached the high court to expedite her application and have it decided within a month
Bench: Justice Sharmila Deshmukh.
Case title: Bhawana Thadhaney vs Vicky Kripalani.
Please Login or Register
