Read Time: 22 minutes
1. [Adjournments] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the Union Government is the largest litigant and it is the government that frequently seeks adjournments needlessly. While expressing strong displeasure at the repeated adjournments sought by these applications, the division bench posted the matter high on the board for October 6th as a courtesy to ASG. On the following day, Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas informed the bench that he would file a short supplementary affidavit detailing the position regarding other plots and structures along the relevant boundary.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Ramkali Dayakisan Gupta & Anr vs UOI & Ors.
Click here to read more.
2. [Naresh Goyal] The Enforcement Directorate has told the Bombay High Court that that the Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal is highly uncooperative, recalcitrant, evasive and suspicious in his statements. Goyal stands accused of money laundering involving a loan of Rs. 538 crores obtained from Canara Bank. In its response, the ED has asserted that Goyal's arrest was carried out in accordance with the established legal procedure. 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.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Naresh Goyal vs ED.
3. [2006 Mumbai Train Blasts] The Bombay High Court has recently rejected six applications filed by the convicts of the 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Case. The high court was hearing various miscellaneous applications filed by the convicts from jail, as well as their appeals, and the state government's plea for the confirmation of the death penalty awarded by the trial court. The accused in the train blast case were convicted by the trial court in 2015. The confirmation of the death penalty and the appeals filed by the convicts are scheduled to be heard by the high court on October 12, 2023.
Bench: Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Zahmeer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [Legal Guardian] The Bombay High Court has recently recognized a daughter as the legal guardian of her mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The daughter informed the bench that she was taking care of her mother, including covering her medical expenses. She also informed the bench that she had appointed a caretaker for her mother. She contended before the court that there is currently no provision in any existing law that would allow her to be appointed as the legal guardian for her mother. She also emphasized the need for a court declaration regarding her mother's Alzheimer's condition.
Bench: Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Anushka Rajiv Mohite vs UOI & Ors.
5. [Termination of Pregnancy] The Bombay High Court has recently granted permission for the termination of a 29-week pregnancy to a 25-year-old woman rape victim who is physically and mentally challenged. The doctors submitted a sealed envelope to the court, indicating that the petitioner is suffering from cerebral palsy with paraparesis at 50% and mild intellectual disability at 50%. The report further stated that continuing the pregnancy at 29 weeks, resulting from an alleged rape, could seriously harm her mental health.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [New High Court Building] Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra Government, informed the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that the high-powered committee had progressed in the allocation of the new high court building in Bandra. He stated that a survey had been carried out, and the boundary had been demarcated with the court officer present. Abdi had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition in 2012 seeking a new building for the high court on a priority basis. The high court had then directed the State government to offer a large and convenient plot of land for the construction of a new complex for the high court. However, since the order of 2019, the State government had not taken any steps toward the same. Abdi claimed that the State was in contempt of the high court's order.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ahmed Abdi vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [Menstrual Sanitation] The Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, directed the State Government to file an affidavit regarding the condition of menstrual sanitation in public government schools. The high court was hearing a public interest litigation seeking recognition of sanitary napkins as an essential commodity for implementing the Menstrual Hygiene Management Guidelines 2015. The bench highlighted the District Legal Services Authority's report, which revealed poor toilet conditions in public schools.
Case title: Nikita Gore vs State of Maharashtra.
8. [POCSO] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who was convicted by a POCSO court after he married the victim and they have a child together. In his bail application filed to the high court, the applicant stated that the victim’s parents had proposed for a marriage with their daughter in November 2022. After the applicant agreed to the proposal, they proceeded with the marriage, and had a child later. The victim, who was physically present in the high court, herself confirmed that the marriage had taken place on November 20, 2022.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: XXX vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Obscene Act U/S 294 IPC] The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against five individuals booked for watching a performance by scantily dressed women and showering them with dummy currency notes. The high court observed that the act of 6 girls who were also booked of wearing short skirts, dancing provocatively, and making gestures in the subjective opinion of police is not an obscene act. According to the FIR, six women were wearing revealing clothing and dancing provocatively, while the audience showered counterfeit Rs. 10 notes on the women. The police also recovered three bottles of alcohol.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case title: Lalita Bais & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
10. [Mysterious Journey] The Bombay High Court recently found itself embroiled in a confusing situation as it attempted to ascertain the party that had filed an appeal against the City Civil Court's order. The single judge bench of the high court comprising Justice Sandeep V Marne called the appeal a mysterious journey to ascertain the party in possession of the property and the party seeking protection from eviction. The court in its order said that during the hearing, the mystery intensified to the point where it left the counsel representing this appeal in a state of confusion about whom she truly represented.
Bench: Justice Sandeep Marne.
Case title: Mr. K Gupta vs Najma.
11. [I Killed Bapu Movie] The Bombay High Court has formed a panel of three members, including Retired Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court Amjad Sayyed, Retired Bombay High Court Judge Abhay Thipsay, and Indian Actor Amol Palekar, and called for their opinions after viewing the movie ‘I Killed Bapu’. The petition filed by Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari has sought directions to be issued to the Central Board of Film Certification to revoke the censor certificate issued to the producer and Zee5. In his petition, Ansari stated that he is a Muslim by religion and at the same time is a follower of Mahatma Gandhi.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari vs CBFC & Ors.
12. [NCP MLA Rohit Pawar] The Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board, in response to the plea filed by the company associated with NCP MLA Rohit Pawar challenging the factory's closure, informed the Bombay High Court that significant environmental clearance violations were made by the company. Baramati Agro, a company controlled by NCP MLA Rohit Pawar had approached the Bombay High Court after the company received the closure notice on September 28, 2023, at 2 AM. The MPCB had asked the company to shut down the factory within 72 hours of issuing the notice.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjula Deshpande.
Case tile: Baramati Agro vs MPCB.
13. [Ravindra Waikar] The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea filed by MLA Ravindra Waikar, a part of Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray's faction, which alleged disproportionate allocation of funds to opposition party MLAs. In his plea, Waikar sought equal allocation of funds for local development in Maharashtra to all MLAs without discrimination based on their political affiliations. The plea highlighted the allocation of over 45,000 crores by the state government through various authorities, with a significant portion going to BJP and Eknath Shinde's Shiv Sena MLAs.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh S Patil.
Case title: Ravindra Waikar vs State of Maharashtra.
14. [Raj Thackeray] The Bombay High Court has reserved its order in a petition filed by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Raj Thackeray seeking to quash the chargesheet filed against him in connection with proceedings initiated during the 2010 civic elections. 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.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh.
Case title: Raj Thackeray Vs State of Maharashtra.
15. [Disabled NDA Employee] The Bombay High Court has quashed a false investigation conducted by a police officer against a disabled employee of the National Defence Academy (NDA). The court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent proceedings against the staffer, citing mental agony and ill-treatment. The high court ordered compensation of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the employee, with the amount to be recovered from the salary of the investigating officer.
Bench: Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha.
Case Title: Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Please Login or Register
