Read Time: 27 minutes
1. [Rs. 25K Cost For False Allegation Against Police] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on a petitioner for making frivolous allegations against the police authorities and approaching the court with unclean hands. The high court was considering a plea filed by Khurshed Junaid Ansari, who claimed to have been illegally detained by the Senior Inspector of Naya Nagar Police Station, allegedly at the behest of society members. Following an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, it was found that the petitioner's allegations were prima facie false, frivolous, and baseless.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Khurshed Junaid Ansari vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Nawab Malik] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently while denying medical bail to the NCP Leader and Former Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik observed that Malik was given adequate medical assistance and that his right to health was not curtailed. On February 23 of the previous year, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested the former minister in connection with a money laundering case related to the Goawala compound property in Kurla, which was allegedly linked to the fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim. Since March 2022, the former minister has been in judicial custody and since May 2022, he has been admitted to Criticare Hospital in Kurla.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
3. [Health Services In Remote Areas] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently observed that even after independence health services are not available in remote areas. The bench presided over a criminal appeal filed by Dilip Gajbhare, who sought to challenge a May 2016 judgment from a sessions court, which found him guilty of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar
Case title: Dilip Sambhaji Gajbhare vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [Discrepancies Between Detention Order] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a detention order as the grounds of detention differed between the English and Marathi versions of the detention orders passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the father challenging the detention order against his son. Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appearing for the petitioner argued that the detention order differs between the English and Marathi version.
Case title: Vilas Ashok Aawale vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. [Relief To Russian Woman] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week granted an interim stay to a Russian woman on the Central government’s order for her to leave India. The court stressed that a person’s nationality should not be a barrier in the way of a mother being with her infant child. During the hearing of a plea filed by a Russian woman, her husband, their infant daughter, and the minor son, it was submitted to the court that the woman had obtained an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card after being initially married to an Indian citizen.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Nina Ozhegova & Ors vs Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr
6. [Relief To Owner Of House] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has provided relief to a 4-bedroom house owner in the western suburbs of Mumbai after the owner had encountered a situation where the tenant had left behind personal belongings, effectively transforming two of the bedrooms into a storage warehouse, leaving the owner with only two usable bedrooms. The petitioner had approached the high court after the competent authority said that since it is not a “court” it cannot ensure delivery of 'vacant possession' and cannot pass an order for removal of the 1st respondent’s belongings.
Case title: Ashok Dhawan vs Shaikh Bashid & Ors
Click here to read more
7. [Jalgaon Jumma Masjid Dispute] In an interim direction passed on Tuesday, the Bombay High Court stayed Jalgaon District Collector's order barring entry to Jumma Masjid and directed him to handover the keys of the mosque to the Trust Committee amid claims and counter claims over existence of the mosque. The High Court observed, prima facie, there is no finding recorded in order of the District Collector about being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace on account of alleged dispute. “Apparently there is no apprehension spelt-out of any likelihood of causing breach of peace,” it said while ordering ad-interim stay.
Bench: Justice RM Joshi.
Case title: Jumma Masjid Trust Committee Through Its President Altaf Khan Nayyum Khan Vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others.
8. [Action Against Eknath Shinde & Devendra Fadnavis] A division bench of the Bombay High Court disposed off a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a CBI investigation against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for the 14 deaths caused by heatstroke in Kharghar. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought action regarding the deaths of 14 people who succumbed to sunstroke during an event where the 'Maharashtra Bhushan' award was conferred upon Dattatreya Narayan Dharmadhikari.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Shaila Jitendra Kanthe vs Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra
9. [Currency Note For Visually Impaired] The Reserve Bank of India last week told the Bombay High Court that introducing new series of banknotes and coins for visually impaired persons is an extremely complicated and time-consuming process. The division bench of the high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by the National Association for Blind seeking directions to be issued to the RBI for introducing features in coins and currency which are friendly for visually impaired persons.
Case title: National Association for Blind vs RBI.
10. [Marathi Signage At Mumbai Airport] The Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) informed the Bombay High Court that it has commenced the process of increasing the font size of signboards in the Marathi and Hindi language to match those in English at the airport. The high court was hearing a public interest litigation that demanded an enlargement of the font size on signboards in Marathi at the Mumbai Airport.
Case title: Gujarati Vichar Manch vs Adani Airport Holding Ltd & Ors.
11. [Imprisonment of 83 Years] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a man who had been sentenced to 83 years of imprisonment in 41 different theft cases based on the grounds of miscarriage of justice. The high court was considering a plea filed by a 30-year-old man who asserted that he had been falsely implicated in 41 different cases. Due to his illiteracy and lack of understanding of legal matters, coupled with his financial constraints that prevented him from hiring a lawyer, he pleaded guilty in all 41 cases with the genuine belief that he would be released from prison for the period already spent as an under-trial prisoner.
Case title: Aslam Salim Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
12. [Kamal R Khan] Kamal R. Khan, a film actor and critic, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR registered against him for providing a critical review of the Hindi movie "Laxmii." A division bench of the Bombay High Court has asked the state government to respond to Khan's plea. Khan was booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 153A, 294, 500, 501, and 505. The FIR against him was lodged in 2020.
Bench: Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice RN Laddha.
Case title: Mr. Mohammad Rashid Kamal @Kamal R. Khan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
13. [Coach For Senior Citizen In Mumbai Local] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week sought a response from the Railway Board on the suggestions made by the Central Railway and Western Railway of converting a luggage compartment in Mumbai Local for senior citizens. The high court was informed about the suggestion made by the Central and Western Railway during the hearing of the Public Interest Litigation filed by K P Purushothaman Nair, a lawyer and a retired senior private secretary of a judge. The plea sought a special coach for senior citizens similar to that of a special coach for disabled persons.
Case title: K.P Puroshathaman vs UOI & Ors.
14. [Same-Sex Couple] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week said that sensitization of Maharashtra State Police is required for dealing with cases related protection of same-sex couples from their families. The high court was considering a plea filed by a lesbian couple seeking protection from one of their families who opposed their relationship. One of the girls, hailing from a state in North India, had her family file a missing complaint.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
15. [SRA & Transit Rent] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently asked the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to set up nodal officers to deal with complaints of slum dwellers for non-payment of transit rent. The observation was made by the high court while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Vijendra Kumar Rai who contended that substantial dues were not been paid to the eligible slum dwellers by the respective developers.
Case title: Vijendra Kumar Rai vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
16. [Burial Grounds] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that once plots are designated as burial grounds, they cannot be utilized for any other purpose except the one for which they are designated. The High Court was addressing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Melwyn Isidore Fernandes and others, represented by advocate Sunita S Banis. The PIL sought directions to open and ensure accessibility to all the reserved plots designated for Christian cemeteries in accordance with the development plan of Thane City.
Case title: Mr.Melwyn Isidore Fernandes and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
17. [Right To Travel] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that income tax assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act do not justify preventing a person's fundamental right to travel overseas. The high court was hearing a petition filed by a promoter of a group company, who encountered a Look Out Circular (LOC) while attempting to travel overseas on May 31, 2023. The LOC was issued by the Deputy Director of Income Tax.
Case title: Achal Ramesh Chaurasia vs Deputy Director of IT & Ors.
18. [Radiation From Mobile Towers] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled in favour of a Pune-based company, quashing and setting aside a resolution by a Gram Panchayat that prohibited the erection of a mobile tower. The court observed that there was no scientific evidence to support the claim that the radiation from the mobile tower had harmful effects. The high court was hearing a petition filed by a company challenging a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat which barred the company from erecting a mobile tower.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Sukre and Justice Rajesh Patil.
Case title: Indus Towers Ltd vs Grampanchayat, Chikhalhol, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli.
19. [Manual Scavenging] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to refrain from insisting on the submission of a succession certificate for compensation claims made by the heirs of individuals who have lost their lives due to manual scavenging. The high court was hearing a petition filed by family members of a sewage worker who died while cleaning sewer tanks. The Thane Municipal Corporation insisted on the submission of an heirship or succession certificate as a prerequisite for compensating the family
Bench: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep V Marne.
Case title: Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
