Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Cruelty] The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR filed by a woman against the relatives of her husband, observing that making comments about not knowing how to cook does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar, heard the petition filed by the relatives who were booked under Sections 406, 498-A, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. “In the instant case, the only allegation levelled against these Petitioners is that they had commented that Respondent No.2 does not know how to cook. Such comment does not constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,” the order reads. The wife had alleged that the relatives insulted and taunted her about her cooking, claiming that her parents hadn't taught her anything about cooking. She married the man in July 2020 and left the matrimonial house in November 2020, following which she filed an FIR in January 2021.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe & Anr vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Shinde vs Thackeray] Bharatshet Gogavale of the Eknath Shinde Faction has moved the Bombay High Court, challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to reject the Shinde Faction’s petition seeking the disqualification of members belonging to the Uddhav Thackeray Faction. Last week, the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker dismissed petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction seeking the disqualification of members from the Shinde faction.The speaker also rejected petitions filed by the Uddhav faction seeking the disqualification of Shinde faction members for defiance of the party whip. The Shinde faction has now moved the high court challenging the order of the Assembly speaker.
Case title: Bharatshet Maruti Gogavale vs Sunil Vaman Prabhu & Ors
3. [MHADA & Aviation Norms] The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by the Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (MHADA) seeking approval to construct a 40-storey residential building within 3 kilometres of the Mumbai International Airport. The division bench of the high court, consisting of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, stated that civil aviation norms cannot be relaxed for a public authority. “No relaxation of civil aviation safety norms can be granted only because the project proponent is a public authority. Aviation safety has nothing at all to do with the identity of the development,” the order reads. MHADA had filed a petition against the Ministry of Defence's decision to deny permission for the construction of a high-rise building near Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport. MHADA had proposed a 115.54-meter-tall building, exceeding the maximum permissible height of 58.48 meters for low-income housing, accommodating 560 tenants.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority vs AAI & Anr.
4. [Community Service For Students] The Bombay High Court has ordered two students of Birla Institute of Technology & Science at Goa to undergo two months of community service in an old age home after they were found to be involved in the theft of potato chips, sanitiser, chocolate, a phone stand, lamps, and a Bluetooth speaker from stalls on the college campus. The division bench of the high court at Goa, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice MS Sonak, heard the petition filed by two students of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science who were debarred for their first semesters. The institute had filed a complaint against 5 students, out of which 3 were pardoned, but the remaining 2 were not, leading them to approach the high court. The students were never shown the complaint by the institute, but they admitted to the theft and returned the stolen items along with a written apology. Despite this, the institute debarred them from writing their first semester and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on each of the two students.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice MS Sonak.
Case title: Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy & Anr vs BITS.
Click here read more.
5. [Govind Pansare] The Bombay High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by the State Government challenging the bail granted to Samir Gaikwad, who is an accused in the Govind Pansare Murder Case. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudesai, stated that Gaikwad had not violated any of the bail conditions nor had he misused his liberty. “Though the application for cancellation of bail was filed within a short time (in 2018), the matter remained pending before this Court for considerable time. During the interregnum period, the trial has commenced and 19 witnesses have been examined. It is stated that Gaikwad has not violated the terms and conditions of the bail and has not misused his liberty,” the order reads. Govind Pansare was fatally shot in Kolhapur on February 16, 2015, and succumbed to his injuries four days later. Initially, the local police handled the investigation, but due to a lack of progress, it was later transferred to the CID SIT. In August 2023, after several years, the case was transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Squad. Gaikwad had been granted bail by the Sessions Court of Kolhapur in 2017.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case title: State of Maharashtra vs Samir Gaikwad.
6. [Shiv Sena vs Shiv Sena] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday issued notice in the petitions filed by the Eknath Shinde Faction challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's decision not to disqualify the members of the Uddhav Thackeray Faction. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, issued notice in the petition filed by Bharatsheth Gogavale. The high court has issued notice to Sunil Prabhu of the Uddhav Faction, the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly, and the Maharashtra Assembly Secretariat. "Issue notice to all respondents. Reply affidavits if any to be filed in advance and copies to be served on the petitioner. Matter to be listed on February 8," the court said. The high court has asked the respondents to reply to the petitions and has kept the petition for hearing on February 8.
Bench: Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Bharatshet Maruti Gogavale vs Sunil Vaman Prabhu & Ors.
7. [Transgender] The Bombay High Court recently stated that the observation made by the trial court, referring to transgenders as rowdy and nasty, while rejecting the bail application, was uncalled for. A single judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar, in its order, recorded that the observations made by the trial court were stereotypical and uncalled for. "Such stereotypical and generalising observations regarding the behaviour of the transgenders is uncalled for. Transgenders are citizens of this country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of all citizens. The right to life includes right to live with dignity," the order reads. The transgender was booked by the Pandharpur City Police Station under the Indian Penal Code for allegedly harassing and abusing a devotee of the Vithal Rukmini Temple at Pandharpur.
Bench: Justice Madhav Jamdar.
Case title: Jyoti Manjappa Prasadavi vs State of Maharashtra.
8. [Vivek Oberio] The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to women who were booked for defrauding Bollywood Actor Vivek Oberoi for Rs. 1.55 crores. The single-judge bench of the high court was hearing the appeal filed by two accused, Nandita Saha and Radhika Nanda who were partners along with Oberoi and his wife in an LLP. The complaint filed by the Chartered Accountant of Oberoi stated that Oberoi along with one Sanjay Saha invested in a LLP. Oberoi paid Rs 27 lakhs for a share of 33.33%. 33.34% share was to be given to Sanjay Saha and his mother Nandita Saha. The balance 33.33% share was of Radhika Nanda. It was alleged that Rs. 10 lakh was invested for life insurance in the name of Nandita Saha and Rs. 5 lakh was withdrawn by Radhika as salary.
Bench: Justice Sarang Kotval.
Case title: Nandita Saha vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Atal Setu] The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered revised compensation to be paid to the 20 landowners whose land was acquired by the government for the construction of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link Project (Atal Setu), inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on January 12, 2023. The division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye was hearing the petitions filed by the owners of the 7 hectares of land that was acquired by the government. The acquisition of land against the owners was initiated by the government under the Land Acquisition Act of 1984. The government authorities invoked the urgency clause, and therefore, no procedure of inquiry was followed. Subsequently, the authorities issued a gazette notification in December 2012, and the award passed by the land acquisition authority was issued in April 2015, which came to be challenged before the high court.
Bench: Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye.
Case title: Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
10. [Kangana Ranaut vs Javed Akhtar] The Bombay High Court on Thursday reserved its order in the petition filed by Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut seeking a stay on the defamation case filed by lyricist Javed Akhtar against her. A single-judge bench, Justice PD Naik, while reserving the order, said that it is likely to be pronounced on February 2. In her petition filed through Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Ranaut claimed that the cross-cases filed by Ranaut arose from the same incident that occurred in March 2016, and thus, they were clubbed together to be heard and tried simultaneously by the same magistrate. However, the proceedings against Akhtar were later stayed by the Sessions Court, which, according to the plea, goes against the established principles of natural justice and fair trial. In response to the petition, Javed Akhtar has submitted before the high court that Kangana is attempting to delay the proceedings in the defamation case. “The present Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for invoking the Writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the present petition is only filed to delay the proceedings before the Ld. 10th MM, Andheri. This is when the Petitioner has already taken numerous adjournments to delay the matter,” the plea reads.
Bench: Justice PD Naik.
Case title: Kangana Ranaut vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
11. [MP Navneet Rana & MLA Ravi Rana] The Bombay High Court has deferred the hearing before the trial court against an independent MP Navneet Rana and MLA Ravi Rana in the Hanuman Chalisa Case. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice PD Naik, deferred the hearing before the trial court until February 2021. The husband-wife duo has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of the discharge plea by the trial court in an FIR registered against them. The FIR was filed against both of them for resisting arrest when the police went to their residence after they announced that they would chant Hanuman Chalisa outside the residence of Former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The duo filed an application before the Sessions Court seeking discharge, which came to be rejected, after which they approached the high court.
Case title: Navneet Rana & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
12. [PAN Services] The Bombay High Court has recently passed a John Doe order restraining anonymous unauthorized websites providing PAN-related services. A John Doe order is an order passed by a court against unidentified and unknown individuals/entities who are difficult to track down. Such orders are generally passed in infringement of intellectual property cases since they cause loss/harm to the person whose intellectual properties are infringed. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre, was hearing a plea moved by UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited (UTIITSL), which sought the takedown of 13 different websites that were using its mark. UTIITSL sought a restraining order against the 13 websites for infringing its copyright and trademark. UTIITSL contended that it was the exclusive authorized entity to issue and provide PAN-related services, including the issuance of Aadhar, Voter ID, etc.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd vs Extra Tech World & Ors.
13. [Mumbai University] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that students applying for admission should be informed about their ineligibility before the completion of the course, and it would not be fair to intimate the ineligibility at the fag end of the course. “We therefore, observe that the University should inform the students about their ineligibility before allotting the seat in any college or at least before completion of Ist semester. It would not be fair to inform the student about his/her ineligibility at the fag end of the course since by then the student would have invested much time, money and energy in completion of the course.,” the order reads. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing a petition filed by Rohan Ravindra Thatte, who was declared ineligible for the LLB Course by Mumbai University in his 6th Semester. Thatte appeared in the State Common Law Entrance Test in July 2021 for enrolling in the 3-year LLB Course. Thatte cleared his B.A. exam with 45.15% in April 2020 and appeared for the CET exam for the academic year 2021-22, being declared a successful candidate in the "open category" on October 29, 2021.
Bench: Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case title: Rohan Ravindra Thatte vs University of Mumbai.
Clcik here to read more.
14. [Bail In Rape Case] The Bombay High Court has recently denied bail to a man booked for raping a 12-year-old disabled minor while observing that there were 11 other robbery cases lodged against the accused. “..there is no substance in the contention that when the incident has occurred, the Applicant was already incarcerated in an other case. It is also to be noted that the Applicant has several antecedents. There are a total of 11 cases lodged against the Applicant under Section 393 (Robbery) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the said cases, the Applicant was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail after a few days,” the order states. A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing a bail plea filed by one Rajendra Dinkar Bagade who was booked under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (2) (j) (l) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The FIR was lodged
Case title: Rajendra Dinkar Bagade vs State of Maharshtra.
15. [Prostitution] The Bombay High Court has recently sentenced a man to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping a 14-year-old minor and trying to sell her for prostitution. A single judge bench of Justice PK Chavan was hearing an appeal filed by the State Government against the Sessions Court's order acquitting the man. Vijay Dive was acquitted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Sections 363 and 366A (kidnapping and procuring a minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. It was alleged that Vijay kidnapped the minor and took her to a red-light area in Nashik. After she was taken to a room, she got scared and ran away. After the victim met a few women (social workers – Diksha Sanstha) on her way, she informed them about the incident. The social workers then took the minor to the police, after which an FIR was lodged.
Bench: Justice PK Chavan.
Case title: State of Maharashtra vs Vijay Dive.
16. [Pran Pratishta] In a special sitting on Sunday, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by four law students challenging the State Government’s decision to declare a public holiday on January 22, 2024, on account of the Pran Pratishta Ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. A division bench of the high court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokahel dismissed the petition, observing that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed was an abuse of the process of law. “We have no doubt that this is an abuse of the process of law. Such proceedings cannot be kept pending and are required to be dismissed with exemplary cost. However, we refrain ourselves from imposing cost with the hope the petitioner in future be more careful when they attend to appear in person in a PIL,” the order states. The Public Interest Litigation has been filed by four law students studying at Maharashtra National Law University (Mumbai), Government Law College (Mumbai), and Institute of Law, Nirma University (Ahmedabad). The 4 students have filed an application before the registrar of the high court seeking urgent listing of the Public Interest Litigation. The PIL contends that declaring a holiday to celebrate the consecration of the Ram Mandir is nothing but spending from the Government exchequer for religious purposes, which is expressly prohibited by Article 27 of the Constitution of India.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Shivangi Agarwal & Ors vs UOI & Anr.
Please Login or Register
