Read Time: 24 minutes
1. [Manholes] The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to clear the fees of the Advocate Commissioners appointed by the high court to inspect the protective grills installed by the municipal corporation over the manholes in the city. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was informed by the Amicus that the fees of the 9 Advocate Commissioners were pending, and they had also filed an application with the registry. “Do commissioners have to beg to you? Why has the corporation not paid them?” asked the bench. Advocate Joel Carlos, appearing for the corporation, informed the bench that the fees of the remaining 15 were cleared and this would be cleared as well. “The main amount is cleared. Some of them have raised miscellaneous. They will be cleared. 15 are cleared and rest 9 will also be cleared,” Joel responded. The high court then gave a week to the corporation to clear the fees of the 9 Advocate Commissioners.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Ruju Thakker vs State of Maharastra & Ors.
Click here here to read more.
2. [Gautam Navlakha] The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to the Bhima Koregaon accused Gauatam Navalakha. A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige while granting bail application of Navalakha said that the bail conditions will be the same as imposed on Anand Teltumde. The National Investigating Agency sought a stay on the high court for 3 weeks to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. The stay was accordingly granted by the high court. Navlakha had appealed to the high court following the second dismissal of his plea by the Special NIA Court in April 2023.In March 2023, the high court had quashed the special judge's order and had remanded it back for reconsideration. However, the special judge once again rejected the bail application, prompting Navlakha to approach the high court again.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigating Agency
Click here to read more.
4. [Chanda Kochhar] The Bombay High Court has sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the petition filed by the former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Chanda Kochhar, challenging the sanction granted by ICICI Bank to CBI to prosecute her. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar, has granted time to CBI to file their reply and has posted the matter for January 05, 2024. A case was registered against Chanda Kochhar and Deepak Kochhar by the CBI after a whistleblower alleged that Chanda had given loans worth Rs. 3250 crores to the Videocon group. As a quid pro quo, the Videocon group invested in the company of Deepak Kochhar. The loan granted to the Videocon group was later declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
Bench: Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Chanda Kochhar vs CBI.
5. [Rhea Chakraborty] The Central Bureau of Investigation today informed the Bombay High Court that Rhea Chakraborty is no longer the brand ambassador of the company for which she is seeking relief to travel to Dubai. Advocate Shreeram Shirsat appearing for the CBI informed the bench that they had written to the company to verify if she is still the ambassador and were awaiting their reply. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Rhea sought permission to move the vacation bench. Accordingly, the bench allowed him to approach the vacation bench and directed the matter to be listed on 26th December. Rhea Chakraborty had approached the high court seeking to suspend the Look Out Circular issued against her by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI was investigating Rhea Chakraborty in the death of the Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput case.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SC Chandak.
Case title: Rhea Chakroborty vs CBI.
6. [Anti Defection] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Attorney General of India in the Public Interest Litigation challenging paragraph 4 of the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution that grants protection to the legislators in case of the merger of political parties. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor granted 6 weeks of time to the Union Government to file its reply to the PIL. Meenakshi Menon, the founder of NGO Vanshakti, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions from the court to prevent lawmakers who have defected from holding any constitutional posts or participating in legislative proceedings until their defection case is resolved. Advocate Ahmed Abdi, appearing for the petitioner, today argued that legislators change political parties due to fear of agencies and voters are not considered during such changes.
Case title: Meenakshi Menon vs UOI.
7. [Gautam Navlakha – Bail Order] The Bombay High Court in its order granting bail to Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha noted that Navlakha only intended to commit the terrorist act which did not transform into any preparation or attempt. “In the present case, the incriminating material as adverted herein above does not in any manner prima facie leads to draw an inference that, Appellant has committed or indulged in a ‘terrorist act’ as contemplated under Section 15 of UAP Act. According to us, the record prima facie indicate that, it was at the most the intention of the Appellant to commit the alleged crime and not more than it. The said intention has not been further transformed into preparation or attempt to commit a terrorist act, to attract Section 15 of the UAP Act.,” the order reads. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige on 19th December granted bail to the Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha. The division bench in its order noted that there was no covert or overt terrorist act which was committed by Navlakha. “Even though in the said documents, the authors of it have expressed their intention to cause fatality to the politically influential persons or to cause tremendous disturbance in the Society at large, the Appellant only being a member of the party cannot be prima facie held to be a co-conspirator to it. From the material on record, it appears to us that, no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the Appellant,” the order states.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigating Agency.
8. [TIP in POCSO Cases] The Bombay High Court has recently directed the State Government to frame guidelines for conducting test identification parades in POCSO cases. The division bench of the high court at Aurangabad, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase, was hearing an appeal filed by a convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a minor. During the hearing, the bench found that the 6-year-old victim was made to appear in the jail premises to identify the accused among the people standing there, and she was made to touch the convict. The division bench expressed serious concern about the procedure adopted by the Special Executive Magistrate, as it contravened the stipulated procedure under the POCSO Act. In its order, the high court directed the state government to formulate guidelines for conducting Test Identification Parades in POCSO cases.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title: Parvej Khan vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Rakhi Sawant] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday exempted Rakhi Sawant from appearing before the magistrate court in the case registered against her for outraging the modesty of a woman. The high court also issued notice to the model-complainant in the petition filed by Rakhi Sawant to quash the case registered against her for outraging the modesty of a woman. The division bench of the high court comprising Justice PD Naik and Justice NR Borkar issued notice to model and posted the matter to 10 January for hearing. Sawant had approached the high court to quash the Section 354A case and defamation case filed against her. Sawant was booked under was booked for offences under Sections 354(A) (outraging modesty of a woman), 500 (defamation), 504 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intent of provoking breach) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act (IT Act).
Case title: Rakhi Sawant vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
10. [Cyber Fraud – Former Chief Justice Bombay High Court] Former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Mumbai Police on December 18, 2023, after losing Rs. 50,000 in a cyber fraud. Justice Dhanuka mentioned in his complaint that on November 27, he received a message stating that his updated PAN details were not linked to his bank account. The SMS further warned that failure to update the PAN details would result in the deactivation of his bank account. In response to the message, the former judge clicked on the link provided, entered his PAN details, and submitted the information. Subsequently, Justice Dhanuka received a phone call from a representative of the bank, inquiring about a transaction of Rs. 49,998.
11. [Maratha Reservation] The Bombay High Court has ruled that candidates who applied for government jobs under the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) can be considered and given reservation under the Economically Backward Class (EWS) category. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, granted relief to 100 petitioners who had approached the high court, appealing against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejecting the state government’s stand that candidates who applied for SBEC can be considered under EWS. The State Government enacted legislation called Maharashtra State. Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC), granting reservations to Marathas beyond the ceiling limit of 50%. In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions granting reservation to the Marathas. Subsequently, the state government passed a resolution allowing SBEC candidates to apply under the EWS quota, which was challenged by certain candidates applying under the EWS quota.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: Akshay Ashok Chaudhari & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [Bail] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man who was booked in a rape case for allegedly sending nude videos to the victim’s relatives. The single-judge bench of Justice GA Sanap was hearing a bail application filed by the man, who was booked under Sections 376(2)(n), 354-A, 354-D, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Advocate Khalid Azmi, appearing for the applicant, contended that the man had been behind bars for 2 years, and there was no progress in the trial. He added that the man was falsely implicated in the case. Azmi further submitted that, to date, the report of the analysis of the mobile data of the accused has not been received. Further, he emphasized that the mobile phones of the victim and her relatives have not been seized and sent for analysis. Additional Public Prosecutor HJ Dedhia submitted that despite four reminders to FSL, Kalina, the analysis of the mobile data has not been done.
Bench: Justice GA Sanap.
Case title: Abubakar Aurangjeb Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
