Read Time: 18 minutes
1. [HC Acquits Man Accused of Killing 2 & 1/2 Year Old] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted a man who had previously been convicted by the Sessions Court for the killing of a 2 ½-year-old child. The high court was considering an appeal filed by the man challenging the Sessions Court's order, which had sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000. The case originated from an FIR filed after the child disappeared while playing in the courtyard. The child's body was discovered in a well with a depth of 45 feet, filled with water up to 21 feet. The child's parents filed the FIR.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Shri Nitin Aganda Lade vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Immersion of Ganpati Idol At Aarey] The division bench of the Bombay Court last week directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to file a reply affidavit detailing the actions it has taken to prevent idol immersion in the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) The high court sought a reply while hearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vanshakti Trust challenging the permission granted by BMC for immersion of idols in three lakes of the Aarey Milk Colony.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Vanshakti Trust Vs MCGM.
3. [Rakesh Roshan] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court last week said that it will hear the plea filed by Bollywood Filmmaker Rakesh Roshan on 25th September. The high court in its order recorded that the two individuals who duped Roshan impersonated as CBI Personnel did not appear before the court even after a private notice was served to them. In 2012, Roshan was duped by two accused who had disguised as CBI personnel and had taken 50 lakhs from him as a settlement in a case. After Roshan became suspicious, he filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The two accused were arrested and it was found that they had duped other film stars too. Allegedly, the money recovered from the duo also included Rs. 50 Lakh which was taken from Roshan.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: Rakesh Roshan vs State & Ors.
4. [Suo Moto Cognizance] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently registered a suo moto public interest litigation of children in Bhiw Dhanora village of Aurangabad district using Thermocol rafts to travel across dam reservoir filled with snakes to reach school. The bench took the suo moto cognizance of a news report published in Times of India on August 27, 2023. The news report stated that a girl named Prajakta Kale, who is barely 11 years old, makes a daring journey, every day, across the backwaters of Jaikwadi, one of Maharashtra's largest dams, to reach her school.
Bench: Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice YB Khobragade.
Case title: Suo Moto PIL
5. [Eknath Shinde] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought an investigation into the funds utilized by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's party during last year's Dusshera Rally. The high court decided to dismiss the PIL after Advocate Nitin Satpute, the petitioner, failed to appear for the hearing for the third time. In the previous hearing, the high court had expressed dissatisfaction with the junior advocate, who had sought an adjournment because her senior counsel was unavailable.
Case title: Deepak Dilip Jagdev vs Eknath Shinde & Ors.
6. [Kishori Pednekar] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court last week on Wednesday granted interim protection from arrest to Ex-Mumbai Mayor Kishori Pednekar for four weeks in the Covid-19 Body Bags Scam. Pednekar had approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail following the Sessions Court's rejection of her anticipatory bail plea in connection with the Covid-19 Body Bag Scam. Pednekar sought legal recourse after an FIR implicated her, along with IAS officer P Velrasu and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. They were accused of procuring COVID-19 body bags at an exorbitant price.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case title: Kishori Kishor Pednekar vs State of Maharashtra
7. [7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week reprimanded the Maharashtra government, criticizing its apparent lack of seriousness in handling appeals and confirmations related to bomb blast cases in Mumbai. The court was informed that the state government had not yet appointed a special public prosecutor to represent it in the confirmation of death sentences for five individuals convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts.
Bench: Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Rajesh Patil.
Case title: Zahmeer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
Click here to read more
8. [Festivals on Public Roads] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week in its order asked the civic authorities to revisit and consider its policy regarding permissions being granted for the celebration of festivals on public roads. With respect to the celebration of the Dahi Handi Festival the division bench raised its concern about the manner in which the policy regulating celebration of such festivals has been framed. The bench said that the policy does not take into account the inconvenience and traffic congestion that may result on account of granting permissions to various groups that celebrate the Dahi Handi Festival in public streets and public squares of Mumbai.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh Pooniwala.
Case title: Sachin D. Basare vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9. [Nawazuddin Siddique] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court last week denied interim relief to Bollywood actor Nawazuddin Siddique in his plea against Zee Studios for payment related to his leading role in the movie 'Haddi'. Justice Modak said that there was no urgency in the case until Zee was given an opportunity to file a reply. In his plea, Siddique asserted that, based on the agreement, he was owed Rs. 5 crore by the movie's producer, Anandita Studios. However, after the agreement with Anandita Studios, the studio entered into a new agreement with Zee Studios, which made Zee the sole and exclusive owner of the movie.
Bench: Justice SM Modak.
Case title: Nawazuddin Nawabuddin Siddique vs Anandita Studios Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
10. [2006 Mumbai Train Blasts] The Bombay High Court on Friday last week said that it will not allow any adjournments in the hearing for the confirmation of the death sentences of the convicts involved in the 7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts case. During the hearing, one of the counsel representing the convicts requested the bench to schedule the next hearing for six weeks later, instead of four-week on October 5. After being pulled up by the high court on Wednesday regarding the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for the confirmation of the death sentence, the Maharashtra Government informed the bench that it had issued a Government Resolution appointing Senior Advocate Raja Thakare as the Special Public Prosecutor.
Case title: Zahmeer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
11. [IPS Rashmi Shukla] The Bombay High Court, on Friday last week, quashed two FIRs lodged against IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla, accusing her of unauthorized phone tapping of politicians. One of the FIRs was filed in Pune, alleging the interception of the phone of Congress state president Nana Patole during the BJP's tenure. Additionally, a second FIR was filed by the Mumbai Police, accusing Rashmi Shukla of phone tapping involving Shiv Sena Leader Sanjay Raut and Nationalist Congress Party's leader Eknath Khadse.
Bench: Justice Nitin Gadkari and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh
Case title: Rashmi Shukla vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [UBT MLA Ravindra Waikar] The Bombay High Court on Friday last week dismissed the plea filed by Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) MLA Ravindra Waikar challenging the BMC's refusal for the redevelopment of his luxury hotel. Waikar had filed a plea before the high court on the grounds that the corporation had cancelled the development permission without any show cause notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore he argued that the same was arbitrary, unjust and malafide.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil.
Case title: Ravindra Waikar vs BMC.
Please Login or Register
