Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [Quashing of Detention Order & 20K Cost] A division bench of the Bombay High Cour recently quashted a detention order passed by a district magistrate. "With great power comes great responsibility. Thus, greater the power, greater the responsibility. Whilst authorizing detention, it is the bounden duty of the authority to act responsibly and with circumspection and in accordance with law, since under the detention law, a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty," the court observed. The bench was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Vishal Sharmali who had challenged the detention order passed against him. Simultaneously, the court was also hearing a petition filed by one Sangeeta Rathod who had challenged the detention order passed against her son and husband. In the petitions, it was claimed that the petitioners had taken cudgels with the marble lobby by exposing their illegalities and how it was difficult for ordinary citizens to raise their voices and concerns against these illegal and anti-social activities.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh
Case Title: Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali vs Union Territory of Daman & Die & Ors
Click here to read more.
2. [JJ Amendment Act 2021] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified that it had not stayed the adoption process while hearing a plea challenging the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2021. The high court was hearing a plea challenging the amendment act of 2021 which gave jurisdiction to the district magistrates on adoption case which was previously under the jurisdiction of civil court. The division bench of the high court in January 2022, comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice SG Dige had passed an order granting interim relief in an interim application filed in a plea challenging the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act 2021.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India & Ors
3. [Grievance Forum Report Animal Sluaghter] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to make a grievance forum available to the citizen through email for making complaints regarding animal slaughter during festivals. The high court passed an order in 2018 directing the Municipal Corporation to frame comprehensive regulatory mechanisms/policies so that religious festivals/events where such animal sacrifice/slaughtering takes place, can be regulated in an orderly manner keeping in view the mandate of law and local conditions of the city.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne
Case Title: Jiv Maitri Trust vs Union of India & Ors
Click here to read more
4. [PIL Against SRK & Aryan Khan] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking an investigation against Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and his son Aryan Khan by the CBI for giving a bribe to former NCB officer Sameer Wankhede. The plea has sought the addition of Bollywood Actor Shah Rukh Khan and his son to be added as accused in the case wherein the former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede is being probed. Further, it seeks registration of separate FIR by CBI against the Mumbai Police Officials who had given a clean chit to Sameer Wankhede and others for corruption and bribe. The plea states that the Mumbai Police had misused the public machinery, property and resources to save the accused for unauthorised purposes.
Case Title: Rashid Khan Pathan vs Shah Rukh Khan & Ors.
5. [RBI Master Circular 2016] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified that it has not stayed the 2016 RBI Circular of Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs. The division bench told the lawyer to check the order which was in the process of being uploaded. The clarification was made by the high court in the order which was uploaded by the high court today on the website. The clarification was made by the high court after several media outlets published news articles yesterday that the high court had stayed the effect of the 2016 circulars.
Case title: SS Hemani vs RBI
6. [Cancellation of Appointment of SC/ST Commission] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently while dismissing a plea challenging cancellation of the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Maharashtra State Commission on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes observed that the change in policy followed by change in government is part of the democratic process. The petitioners were aggrieved by the cancellation of the appointment order of December 2022 by the current Eknath Shinde Government. The petitioners had challenged the cancellation of various appointments of non-official Members and other Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions, etc. They contended that such changes were made only to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation.
Case Title: Ramhari Dagdu Shinde & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [Sex On Even Days] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently refused relief to a 'Kirtankar' namely Nivrutti Maharaj who had said that people wanting to conceive a male child should have sex on even days. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the private person claiming to be a social activist in Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti who had challenged the order passed by the sessions court that had quashed and set aside the summons issued to the preacher. The petitioner further prayed for the restoration of the case against the preacher.
Bench: Justice Kishore Sant
Case Title: Ranjana Pagar-Gawande vs Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh (Indorikar) & Ors.
8. [MLA Ravindra Waikar] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday remarked that an attempt is being made to politize the issue in a plea filed by MLA Ravindra Waikar of the Uddhav Thackeray Faction challenging the cancellation of development permitted by the BMC of his 5-star hotel in Jogeshwari, Mumbai. The high court while referring to para 34 of the petition stated that Waikar being from a rival political party did not expect any justice from his political rival persons.The bench responded to this, "Attempt is being made to politicise the issue. Why?"
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil
Case title: Ravindra D Waikar vs MCGM
9. [NCLAT Bench at Mumbai] A division bench of the Bombay High Court asked the petitioner who sought direction for establishing a bench of NCLAT in Mumbai to approach the NCLAT Chairperson for permanent virtual hearings. The high court also asked the petitioner to move the Supreme Court against the Union for not honouring the undertaking made before the Supreme Court. The Union had made a statement before the Supreme Court that it would set up a circuit bench of NCLAT in four regions where there are high courts.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor
Case Title: Nicky Pokar vs UOI
10. [Frivalous PILs] On Wednesday, a division bench of Bombay High Court while hearing various PILs asked the petitioners to prove their bonafide. The division bench of the principal seat at Bombay takes up Public Interest Litigation every week on Wednesday. The division bench disposed of two pleas filed by lawyers while questioning how were the lawyers concerned with the cause. The bench said that the lawyers could register themselves with the legal aid services."If you want to espouse social cause then register yourself in legal aid and provide pro bono services," the bench said.
11. [PIL Against Eknath Shinde] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the petitioner to prove his bonafide in a PIL filed against Maharashtra Chief Minister, Eknath Shinde seeking a probe into funds used in the Dusshera rally at Bandra Kurla Complex last year. The plea was filed by one Deepak Dilip Jagdev through Advocate Nitin Satpute alleged Shinde had called 2,00,000 people from across the state, with about 1,700 buses from the Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) being deployed to facilitate transportation during the Dussehra rally. The plea further claimed that Shinde's party had used Rs. 10 crores for the rally, which was spent by an unregistered political, and therefore should be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Mumbai Police Economic Offence Wing.
Case title: Deepak Dilip Jagdev vs Eknath Shinde & Ors.
12. [High Court Criticizes Registrar of Trademark] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently came down heavily on the Registrar of Trademarks and the Senior Examiner for rejecting a trademark application without considering the reply. The high court was hearing an appeal filed by "I Am Ocean LLC" which sought to set aside the order rejecting its trademark application by the Registrar of Trademark. The order was passed in August 2021. The application was rejected on the grounds that it was similar to another mark. The petitioner upon receiving the said order called upon the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to furnish reasons as the said Order was an un-reasoned order. However, the Senior Examiner rejected the application on similar grounds that it was identical or similar having similar goods/services
Bench: Justice RI Chagla
Case Title: I Am The Ocean LLC vs Registrar of Trade Marks
13. [Anghanwadi Workers] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday remarked that judicial officers in Gadchiroli sit with tigers inside the court. "Some of our judicial officers sit with even tigers in their court there,” Justice Patel said in a lighter vein.The remark was made while hearing a plea filed by Anghanwadi workers against action by state government. The high court was hearing a plea filed by Anganwadi Workers against action initiated by Maharashtra Government against disciplinary action taken by the State government. The state government had initiated action against the workers for not entering beneficiary data on the POSHAN tracker app.
Case title: Anganwadi Karmachari vs ICDS Commissionerate
14. [Sameer Wankhede & CBI] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday called upon the CBI to submit its case diary in a case wherein NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede is being probed. The high court also questioned the CBI if it was going to arrest Sameer Wankhede or not. During the hearing, the bench remarked, "Why are shying away to tell us if you are going to arrest? Don't play hide and seek". The agency had approached the high court seeking vacation of the order passed by the vacation bench granting interim relief to Sameer Wankhede. Wankhede had approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the CBI. He claimed that he was employed by the Central government, receiving a salary from the finance ministry. He submitted that he was working with NCB on a loan basis.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs UOI
15. [Assault on Lawyers Inside Police Station] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently transferred an FIR from Antop Hill Police Station to Matunga Police Station in a plea filed by two lawyers who alleged that they were assaulted and detained inside the Antop Hill Police Station. The high court has transferred the FIR to the Assistant Police Commissioner of Matunga Police Station. Two lawyers had pleaded that despite a written complaint on 20th May 2023, there was no registration of FIR against the officials. The 2 lawyers then approached various authorities but no FIR was registered against the official. Therefore, they approached the high court.
The matter will now be taken up by the division bench on 3rd July.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse
Case title: Sadhana O Yadav & Anr vs. Nasir Kulkarni & Ors
Please Login or Register
