Read Time: 26 minutes
1. [Skin To Skin Judgement] Former Bombay High Court Judge Pushpa Ganediwala who delivered the controversial skin-to-skin judgement under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act has approached the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court for denial of pensionary benefits. Ganediwala served as a judge of the district court for 11 years after she was appointed as a judge in 2007. She was appointed as the additional judge of the Bombay High Court at the Nagpur Bench in 2019 for 2 years.
Case title: Pushpa Ganediwala vs High Court of Registrar.
Click here to read more.
2. [7.5 Lakh Deposit For Hearing PIL] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently directed the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation to deposit Rs. 7.5 Lakhs as a pre-deposit for the hearing of the case. The petitioner had initiated multiple proceedings against public officers, and the court observed that these proceedings were kept pending like the 'Sword of Damocles.' The high court was hearing a public interest litigation against nine public officers and six contractors, filed by a contractor alleging misappropriation of Rs. 3 crores. The petitioner sought an inquiry against all of them and directions to conduct disciplinary proceedings under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Bench: Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade.
Case title: Sharad Kulkarni vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
3. [Govt Run Schools] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has formed a district-level committee, including judges, to monitor the situation in government-run schools while observing that future of young children should be safeguarded and be given the highest priority. The high court was hearing a civil application in a suo moto public interest litigation registered by the court concerning the poor conditions of schools operated by local authorities such as Zilla Parishad, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, etc.
Case title: Registrar Judicial Aurangabad Bench vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
4. [Successive Bail Applications] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that successive bail applications should be placed before the same judge who has heard the earlier bail application. The bench was seized with a matter wherein a second bail application was filed by an accused whose earlier bail plea was rejected by another single-judge bench.
Bench: Justice Amit Bokar.
Case title: Ajay Rajaram Hinge vs State of Maharashtra.
5. [Bail To Man Accused Of Chopping Partner] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Amit Borkar, recently granted bail to a man accused of killing his live-in partner, chopping the body into small parts, and disposing of it in sacks and bedsheets. The man was booked under the Maharashtra Police Act and Arms Act. The police conducted an investigation after a missing complaint was filed by the parents of the girl on August 8, 2021. The prosecution contended that the man had confessed that he was having a love affair with the girl. Allegedly on refusal to perform a marriage, there were frequent quarrels between the man and the deceased.
Case title: Hanumant Ashok Shinde vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [Disabled Persons] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has warned the Maharashtra Government, cautioning them of possible contempt action if the state fails to file an affidavit in the next hearing regarding the issue of reservation for disabled persons. The high court was hearing a plea concerning certain Government Resolutions and the implementation of schemes and development programs under Section 37 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Rajendra Petrus Lalzare vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [Termination of Pregnancy] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently denied termination of 24-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl. The girl was allegedly raped and the mother had filed a First Information Report (FIR). The mother alleged that her daughter was abducted by unknown persons and was raped. The investigation revealed that the girl and the accused had a love affair and developed physical relations on many occasions.
Case title: X vs State of Maharashtra.
8. [12 MLC Nominated By MVA Govt] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has sought a response from the state government in a PIL 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. The previous government, led by Former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray, had nominated these 12 members as MLCs in November 2020. However, the appointments were not made by the then-governor.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Sunil Modi vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [DV Act & Sec. 498A] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently noted a concerning trend of adopting a similar approach to Section 498A IPC in cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The bench observed that the Supreme Court had previously highlighted the misuse of Section 498A IPC to harass the relatives of the husband and made the observation in this context. The high court was considering a plea filed by the husband's brother, the husband's brother's wife, and the husband's sister, who argued that they did not share the same household with the complainant.
Bench: Justice RM Joshi.
Case title: Dhananjay Mohan Zombade & Ors vs Prachi Zombade.
10. [Rahul Gandhi] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court last week deferred the hearing in the plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The plea sought to quash the summons issued to him in a complaint against his remarks made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018. Gandhi was issued a process after a complaint was filed by a BJP supporter in November 2021. Subsequently, Gandhi approached the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of the summons.
Bench: Justice Sarang Kotwal.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal.
11. [Right To Maintenance] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently ruled that the right to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a right in personam and not a right in rem. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the daughter of a deceased mother seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The mother had previously filed a Section 498A case against her husband and also applied under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act before the Family Court.
Bench: Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YB Khobragade.
Case title: Jayshree Jimdam & Anr vs Satyandra Jimdam.
12. [Section 149 IPC] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that a mere plea ‘not being armed’ would not absolve a person from liability under Section 149 of the IPC. During the high court appeal, five accused, who were previously convicted by the trial court for killing a man during a quarrel, sought to challenge their conviction. It was alleged that two of the appellants used weapons to commit the murder, while the other attempted to stop the victim's wife from intervening.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title: Hanuman Karkar & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
13. [Freedom Fighter’s Pension] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad directed the central government to pay the freedom fighter's pension to his legally wedded wife after having paid it to a nominated lady for 25 years. The high court heard a case involving a freedom fighter who received a pension from the government until 1985. After his passing, he nominated a lady in place of his wife, who received a pension until 2018, when she also passed away. The legally wedded wife filed a civil suit, obtaining a decree recognising her as the lawful wife. Subsequently, she approached the high court seeking her entitlement to the pension, which had been discontinued after the demise of the nominated wife.
Case title: Somitrabai Bhagwan Ajbe vs UOI & Ors.
14.[Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently asked the Central Government to fill the vacancies in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at the earliest while observing that slackness on the part of the authorities cannot be approved of. The division bench of the high court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Yogesh Morbale, an advocate in Kolhapur who raised the grievance of non-functioning of the tribunal. The high court was informed that the search-cum-selection committee made its recommendations for filling up the aforesaid four vacancies on 24th April 2023, however, the State Government took some time in sending the recommendations to the Central Government.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Yogesh Prakash Morbale vs The Registrar, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
15. [Violation By Pandal During Ganesh Chaturthi] The Bombay High Court recently directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to devise a mechanism to prevent pandals that have previously violated granted permissions from repeating the same actions. The high court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Prameya Welfare Foundation which sought direction to be issued to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, preventing the granting of future permissions for erecting pandals and temporary structures to those mandals/organizers who have violated conditions of previously granted permissions.
Case title: Prameya Welfare Foundation vs MCGM.
16. [Aarey Colony] The Bombay High Court last week has constituted a committee to propose a roadmap for the reconstruction and repair of approximately 45 kilometres of roads in the Aarey Colony. The Bombay High Court was addressing a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the authorities for the repair and maintenance of roads in Aarey Colony. The bench acknowledged the complexity of the matter and emphasized the need for a comprehensive report from the committee to address the issues involved.
Case title: Sunil Shukla vs State of Maharashtra.
17. [Resignation In Open Court] Justice Rohit B Deo of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court today resigned in the open court last week. He expressed regret and apologized for any unintended hurt caused. He encouraged lawyers to continue working hard and sought forgiveness for his strictness on certain occasions. Justice Deo was appointed as a additional judge in 2017 and was made as the permanent judge in 2019.
18. [PNPNDT Act] A single bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently dismissed a plea filed by two doctors seeking discharge in a case related to the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) while observing that the smallest of an error attracts penal consequences under the PCPNDT Act. The high court was hearing a plea filed by a doctor seeking discharge in the case filed against them under the PCPNDT Act for non-compliance and discrepancies in filling Form F under the act.
Case title: Ravindra Patil vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more
19. [Mahatma Gandhi] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Bombay High Court seeks guidelines to prevent the circulation of derogatory remarks against Mahatma Gandhi and other revered figures on social media platforms. The petitioner, Sandip Marve, is the trustee secretary of Maharashtra Gandhi Samrak Nidhi (MGSN). The PIL claims that the petitioner encountered a video on a social media platform featuring Hindu activist Sambhaji Bhide making derogatory remarks about Mahatma Gandhi's father, suggesting he was in the employment of a rich Muslim Watandar and committed theft before fleeing. Bhide implied that Gandhi's mother was taken to the Muslim Watandar's house, insinuating that Gandhi was Muslim.
Case title: Kumar Saptarshi & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
