Read Time: 24 minutes
1. [Delay of 28 Years] The Bombay High Court has recently refused to condone a delay of 28 years in an appeal filed by a woman against the order of the Family Court. A division bench of the high court comprising Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an application filed by a wife seeking to condone a delay on the ground that she was ignorant and did not have the money to appoint a lawyer to file an appeal against the order passed in 1994. The wife claimed that she was in a complete state of trauma and stress after her husband threatened to kill her and her daughter. She also asserted that her divorce lawyer had not educated her about maintenance rights and the further course of action.
Bench: Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan.
Case title: Maitreyee Shenoy vs KV Shenoy.
Click here to read more.
2. [Outraging Modesty of Woman] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that following a woman a couple of times may be annoying but does not amount to outraging the modesty of a woman. “As regards following and abusing P.W. 1, the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman. Nonetheless keeping in mind this conduct of the applicant, the ultimate act which he has done will have to be considered, which act is pushing/shoving her while riding bicycle. It is not the case of P.W. 1 that the applicant has touched her inappropriately or has given push at a specific part of her body which made her position embarrassing,” the court said. The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Anil Pansare, was hearing an appeal filed by a man who was convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman and was sentenced to two years in rigorous imprisonment. The victim alleged that the man had followed her a couple of times and abused her. On the date of the incident, while she was going to the market, the applicant, who was following her on a bicycle, pushed/shoved her. Although she was annoyed, she proceeded further. The applicant continued to follow her, and as a result, she beat him.
Bench: Justice Anil Pansare.
Case title: Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail vs State of Maharashtra.
3. [Bollards on Footpath] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and questioned how its officers could be so unmindful in installing bollards on the footpath, which obstructs people using wheelchairs. "...See the kind of bollards that are installed. How can BMC be so unmindful? How can your officers be so unmindful. It is not that BMC has not put in effort or used money. The officers who installed this should be taken to task. A person using a wheelchair is unable to pass through it," the bench said. The division bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was hearing a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered by the high court after it received an email from a 25-year-old Shivaji Park resident, Karan Shah, who has been wheelchair-bound since birth. In his email, Karan stated that the bollards installed by the BMC on the footpaths made it impossible for wheelchair users to pass through.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: High Court On Its Own Motion.
4. [Mumbai Goa Highway] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said that any deviation in the timeline concerning the construction of the Mumbai-Goa Highway will be viewed seriously by the court and will amount to contempt of court. "We dispose of the writ petition that the entire stretch shall be complete in all aspects including road widening and repairs by 31 December 2024. This direction is based on the assurance of the state government, NHAI and the State Government Work Department. Any deviation in the form of any delay in time line may be viewed by the court seriously which may amount to contempt," the court said. The division bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the time being taken by the NHAI to complete the reconstruction and extension of the Mumbai-Goa Highway. The construction and repair work of the NH-66 was initially to be completed by December 2020, but the authorities sought an extension until 2022. After the work could not be completed by the previously extended deadline of December 31, 2023, an additional extension was sought today until December 31, 2024.
Case title: Owais Pechkar vs UOI & Ors.
5. [NDPS] Following the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) report submitted to the high court, which stated that 222 trials are pending under the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS), the Bombay High Court has directed a Special NDPS Court in Thane to expedite a trial of a person who has been an undertrial prisoner since November 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice SM Modak directed the trial court to frame charges against the applicant within 3 weeks. The high court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 6 months, after which the accused was permitted to approach the high court seeking bail. Advocate Ayaz Khan, representing the applicant who had approached the high court in 2020, contended that the co-accused in the case was granted bail by the high court. He further contended that the DRI had not conducted a seizure and spot panchnama and sent samples to the Magistrate beyond the time stipulated under the NDPS act. The high court had sought a report from the trial court on the number of trials pending before the high court, to which a report was submitted that 222 cases were pending.
Bench: Justice SM Modak.
Case title: Mohamed Sikander Cheemu vs UOI & Anr.
6. [Non Cognizable Offences] The Bombay High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of the State of Maharashtra to issue a circular directing the investigating agencies to seek permission from the jurisdictional magistrates to investigate non-cognizable offences. “Considering the ambiguous status, I deem it necessary to issue directions to the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai to issue Circular/Notification stating therein that in appropriate cases (which should be made identifiable), the investigating agency should approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Code, seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence,” the order states. The single-judge bench of the high court at Nagpur, comprising Justice Anil Pansare, also noted in its order that the Investigating Officer should be mindful that non-cognizable offences are punishable, and the officers are duty-bound to investigate such offences. “The investigating officer should be mindful of the fact that even the non[1]cognizable offences are punishable, and therefore, in appropriate cases, he is duty-bound to investigate even such offences and ensure that the investigation reaches logical end,” the order reads.
Case title: Nitin Shivdas Satpute vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
7. [Zudio] The Bombay High Court has recently extended the interim relief granted to the retail company Trent Limited, which is a Tata-owned retail company, by directing unknown persons to not use the company’s trademark ‘Zudio’. A single-judge bench of Justice RI Chagla passed an order on November 2 without hearing any of the defendants in the case, considering the urgency involved. Trent Limited claimed that zudiofranchise.net and other defendants were using the company’s mark ‘Zudio’ for their services and were also using their domain name. The bench, in its order, recorded that it was convinced that Trent Limited’s trademark/artistic work of ZUDIO is distinctive and has garnered enormous goodwill and reputation.
Bench: Justice RI Chagla.
Case title: Trent Limited vs Zudiofranchise.net & Ors.
8. [Slapping 8 Year Old] The Bombay High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to a man who showed his willingness to apologize to a child after he was booked for slapping an 8-year-old. A single-judge bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal was hearing an application moved by a man who was booked for slapping an 8-year-old while he was playing with his friends. According to the complainant – the father, the victim was playing with his friends on 9th November 2023 in the evening when the man pulled the child and slapped him. After the CCTV footage was checked, the victim was seen apologizing to the man with folded hands. The father then filed an FIR with the Borivali Police after which the man was booked under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC along with Section 75 (child cruelty) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Bench: Justice Sarang Kotwal.
Case title: Tilakraj Omprakash Saluja vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
9. [Domestic Violence] The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a mother-in-law cannot prosecute the father and brother of the daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Admittedly, the 2005 Act is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. While the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act,” the order states. A single-judge bench led by Justice Neela Gokhale heard a petition filed by the father, his son and his daughter (X). The trio were facing prosecution based on a complaint filed by the mother-in-law of X under the Domestic Violence Act. X got married in 2016 and claimed that she had been subjected to cruelty. An FIR was also lodged against X’s husband and his family members under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Bench: Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: X & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Clicl here to read more.
10. [Pre Arrest Bail To Lawyer] The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to an advocate who wrongfully claimed to have secured bail for a client's husband and forged a sessions court order.A single-judge bench, led by Justice SV Kotwal, heard a pre-arrest bail plea filed by the lawyer who was booked under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468 (forgery), and 475 (counterfeiting document) of the Indian Penal Code. The high court while denying anticipatory bail to the advocate noted that the offence is fundamentally detrimental to the entire legal system. “This offence does not only cause harm to the victim in this case, but, it is also fundamentally detrimental to the entire legal system. This kind of offence corrodes the faith which the public has in the entire system,” the order reads. Advocate Hiral Jadhav, the applicant, was hired by the complainant to secure bail for her husband in a murder case. In August 2022, the complainant paid Rs. 65,000 to Jadhav for securing bail. In October 2022, Jadhav informed the complainant that she had secured bail for her husband and asked her to provide Rs. 25,000 as the bail amount. Jadhav then handed an envelope to the complainant, which allegedly contained Rs. 25,000 and the bail order, instructing her to deposit it with the prison authorities.
Bench: Justice SV Kotwal.
Case title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
