Read Time: 20 minutes
1. [Sameer Wankhede] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week said that it will hear the plea filed by Former NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede seeking quashing of CBI FIR on September 5. The CBI had registered an FIR against Wankhede for allegedly trying to extort money from Bollywood Actor Shahrukh Khan when his son Aryan Khan was arrested by Wankhede in the Cordelia drugs cruise bust case. 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 Nitin Sambre and Justice Rajesh Patil.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs CBI.
Click here to read more.
2. [Rahul Gandhi] Congress Leader and MP Rahul Gandhi has approached the Bombay High Court against the order of the Thane Magistrate Court allowing the complainant, a RSS worker, to annex documents in the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Gandhi for making remarks against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The RSS worker had lodged a defamation complaint against Gandhi, alleging that he had stated in a speech that the RSS was accountable for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
Bench: Justice Sarang Kotwal.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Pandharpur Temples Act] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week sought a response from the Maharashtra government in the Public Interest Litigation filed by BJP Leader Subramanium Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of the Pandharpur Temples Act that allowed the Maharashtra government to take control over the administration of the temples. The former member of Rajya Sabha, Subramanian Swamy had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court for freeing the temples of Lord Vithal and Lord Rukmini at Pandharpur from the government-controlled administration.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Dr Subramaniam Swamy & Anr vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [12 MLC Nominated By MVA Govt] The Maharashtra government has told the Bombay High Court that just because there was a delay on part of the Governor to decide on the 12 MLC nominated the MVA government does not disentitle the council of ministers of the Eknath Shinde government to withdraw the recommendations made by MVA government. The response was filed by the State government through an affidavit in a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Sunil Modi challenging the decision of Former Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to withdraw the names of 12 Members of Legislative Council (MLC) recommended by the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government.
Case title: Sunil Modi vs State of Maharashtra.
5. [Liberal Approach Against PILs] A division bench of the Bombay High Court remarked last week that the court has adopted a liberal approach in considering Public Interest Litigations. The high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought forth by Sunil Modi, challenging the transfer of a City Chief Engineer to the hydraulic department within the Municipal Corporation of Kolhapur. Under scrutiny was a transfer order carrying the signature of Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. The plea entailed seeking a writ of quo warranto against the legitimacy of such a transfer.
6. [Mumbai Coastal Road Project] The division bench of the Bombay High Court last week asked whether it could entertain petitions concerning the layout of the Mumbai Coastal Road project, especially when the BMC had already completed around 80% of the project. The high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by a city-based architect. The petition sought directives to alter the design of the coastal road near Nariman Point without requiring a complete overhaul of the entire project.
Case title: Alan Abraham vs. MCGM.
7. [MCOCA] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising recently held that an accused booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) cannot be discharged at the stage of remand before taking cognisance. The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the Maharashtra Government against the order of the Special MCOC Court discharging the accused booked under MCOC.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: State of Maharashtra vs Shiva Rishipal Tusambad.
8. [Bail To Brother In Rape Case] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a 23-year-old brother who was booked for raping her 16-year-old sister in 2019. The high court was hearing a bail application filed by the brother who was booked under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The brother and sister, both of whom were orphaned, were residing with an acquaintance. The brother was arrested by the police in 2019 when the age of the brother was 23 and his sister was 16 years old.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Dream girl 2] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to stay the release of the Bollywood movie ‘Dream Girl 2’ which is set to hit the theatres tomorrow. The bench while refusing to stay the release of the movie ‘Dream Girl 2’ recorded that the interim application was filed by the plaintiff only on 18th August and the eleventh hour the films could not be prevented from releasing. The high court was hearing an interim application filed by Ashim Kumar Bagchi on 18th August, seeking a stay on the release of the movie 'Dream Girl 2'. The order was passed by the high court on 22nd August.
Bench: Justice RI Chagla.
Case title: Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms Limited & Ors.
10. [Kirit Somaiya] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently allowed BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya to withdraw his plea against the proceedings initiated against him in the defamation case filed by National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) and granted him liberty to approach the sessions court. The high court was hearing a petition filed by the BJP leader against the process issued against him by the magistrate court in the defamation case filed by NSEL against Somaiya in 2017.
Bench: Justice Sarang V Kotwal.
Case title: Kirit Somaiya vs National Spot Exchange Limited & Anr.
11. [FIR On Advice Of Ex] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 22-Year-Old student who was booked in a rape case while observing that the FIR was registered by the victim on the advice of her ex-boyfriend. The high court was considering a bail plea from a 22-year-old student who had been charged in a rape case. The victim had established contact with the accused subsequent to her breakup with her boyfriend, who was a friend of the accused. The accused attempted to mend the relationship between the victim and his friend.
Case title: Avinash Subhash Kamble vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [Relief To 86-Year-Old Man & Bedridden Wife] A division bench of the Bombay High Court in its order dated 22nd August has granted relief to a bunch of petitioners including a 86-year-old man and his bedridden wife while directing the MCGM to restore the water and electricity supply at their house in Bandra. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the 86-year-old who was living in a rented premises with a bad structural condition. The MCGM had on 17th August 2023 disconnected the electricity and water supply of the entire building after the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had declared the building under C2A category (Dangerous parts of the building that needs to be vacated).
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Savio Dsouza & Ors vs MCGM & Anr.
13. [Show Cause Notices & Finance Minister] A division bench of the Bombay High Court urged the Ministry of Finance to establish a robust approach for the effective resolution of show cause notices. The high court was hearing a case in which a company contested a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of the Central Excise Department, alleging them of non-payment of service tax. The court also observed that there were instances where show cause notices had been pending for up to ten years.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case title: UPL Ltd vs UOI & Ors.
14. [Enviormental Clearnaces] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that municipal corporations cannot demand the renewal of environmental clearance from developers as a prerequisite for processing applications for occupancy certificates. Cosmos Prime Project Ltd had filed a plea before the high court after being denied an occupancy certificate by the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation (VVCMC). The denial was based on the VVCMC's insistence on the renewal or revalidation of environmental clearance. The high court, in its ruling, pointed out that the demand by VVCMC for such revalidation of environmental clearance was untenable.
Case title: Cosmos Prime Projects Ltd vs VVCMC.
Please Login or Register
