Read Time: 26 minutes
1. [Cost On Govt. Officers] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that the court would start imposing costs on government officers personally if the orders of the court are brazenly ignored. The high court was hearing a plea filed by an employee who was appointed as a teacher due to the vacancy of a permanent employee. The Deputy Director of the Education of the State of Maharashtra through an order of March 2020 refused to grant approval for the appointment of the employee as the ‘Shikshan Sevak’ in the junior college.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Case title: Rajan Sahadeo Ratu & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
Click here to read more
2. [Right To Pension] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently observed that the right of pension is a valuable right vested in a government servant. The high court was hearing a plea filed by an Assistant Professor of Poonam College of Pharmacy in Pune seeking directions from the court to direct the college to condone the gap in his service that would entitle him to retirement benefits.
Case title: Dr Pradeep Rangrao Nalawade vs Poona College of Pharmacy & Ors.
3. [Encroachment On Railway Property] A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale recently observed it was not inclined to give an extension of time even for a minute and the petitioner had tried to pull a fast one on the court. The observations were made while hearing a plea by society against the demolition of encroached property by the society. The high court was hearing a plea filed by one Ekta Welfare Society which had challenged the eviction and demolition notices of BMC for encroaching on the property of Western Railway.
Ekta Welfare Society vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
4. [Dress Code For Advocate] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on last week adjourned a case after the Advocate representing the petitioner did not appear in proper dress code. "Advocate for the Petitioner is not in proper dress code. Stand over to 10th July 2023," the bench said in its order. Section 49 (1) (gg) of the Advocates Act 1961 grants the Bar Council of India the authority to establish regulations concerning the attire to be worn by advocates when appearing before any court or tribunal, taking into consideration the prevailing climatic conditions.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige
Case title: Keval Bhupendra Shah vs State of Maharashtra
5. [Misleading Courts] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently frowned upon two lawyers who misled the court and their clients, observing that the “level had reached the zenith”. The high court was hearing a bail plea filed by an individual booked under Section 307 and Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. After the state was served notice, the counsel appearing for the applicant sought time from the court to take instructions from the client. On the next date, the court found out that an affidavit was filed granting no objection by the eyewitness instead of the complainant. Pertinently, the accused and the eyewitness were in a live-in relationship.
Bench: Justice SG Mehare
Case title: Lakhan Prasad Misal vs The State of Maharashtra
6. [Authority of HC Above MLA] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently remarked that the authority of the high court runs above that of MLAs. The remarks were made by the high court while hearing a plea filed by one Gyan SP Developers LLP against the Tahsildar of Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The high court in its order noted that after every attempt to stall the demolition of the slum structures failed, the opposition had come in the form of a notice from all entities including the Pest Control Officer, K/East Ward of the MCGM, stating that the demolition cannot proceed.
Case title: Gyan SP Developers LLP vs The Tahsildar 1 (Special Class), SRA
7. [Inter Faith Caste Committee] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has sought Maharashtra State Government's response in a public interest litigation filed challenging the government resolution constituting the interfaith caste committee. The public interest litigation has been filed by the Citizen of Justice and Peace, People's Union for Civil Liberties challenging the implementation of the government resolution. The plea states that the said resolution is against Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the plea adds that the state government was displaying discrimination against women "By using the inherently questionable protection of women as a paradigm and tracing inter-religious relationships only through women, the Maharashtra government is displaying discrimination based on gender as also denying women their own agency and choice.” the plea adds.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor
Case title: Citizen For Justice & Peace vs State of Maharashtra
8. [BMC Playing With Lives of People] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that by issuing inconsistent area statements, the BMC was playing with the precious lives of human beings. The high court was hearing a plea filed by one Yasin Gulam Hussain Esmail against BMC and developer Cherrysons Estates Pvt Limited.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil
Case title: Yasin Gulam Hussain Esmail vs BMC
9. [Mumbai Goa Highway] A division bench of the Bombay High Court last week imposed a cost of Rs. 50000 on the National Highway Authority of India and the State Government for breach of their undertaking for construction of Mumbai Goa highway till 2020. The bench imposed the cost on the respondents while noting that it was the third time that the petitioner had come to the court seeking implementation of the undertaking given by the NHAI and State government. The high court was informed by the petitioner in person, Advocate Owais Pechkar that potholes were not fixed despite the court's order.
Case title: Owais Pechkar vs UOI
10. [Sameer Wankhede vs CBI] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently allowed Former NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede to amend his plea to add 3 new additional grounds to his plea seeking quashing of CBI FIR. The CBI had registered an FIR against Wankhede for allegedly trying to extort money from Bollywood Actor Sharukh Khan when his son Aryan Khan was arrested by Wankhede in Cordelia drugs cruise bust case. Wankhede had approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the CBI.
Case title: Sameer Wankhede vs CBI
11. [Naresh Goyal] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on last week granted an interim stay on show cause notice issued by IDBI Bank under RBI's Master Circular on Wilful Defaulter to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita Goyal. The division bench was hearing a plea filed by Naresh Goyal challenging the show cause notice issued to him and his wife by the IDBI Bank declaring them to be will defaulters. In his plea, Goyal had contended that after a show cause notice was issued by IDBI Bank, Goyal had asked for a list of documents based on which they were declared as wilful defaulters. However the same was not provided and for the same reasons it was argued that it violates principles of natural justice.
Case title: Naresh Goyal & Anr. Vs IDBI Bank & Ors.
12. [Daughter Allowed To Meet 93-Year-Old Mother] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently allowed a habeas corpus plea filed a by daughter seeking to meet her 93-year-old mother who was allegedly detained by the petitioner’s sister. The high court had appointed Advocate Manjiri Shah to ascertain the wishes of the 93-year-old. A report was submitted by Advocate Shah to the court. The court had appointed Advocate Shah to determine the wishes of the 93-year-old mother. According to the sealed envelope, she was well cared for by the present petitioner and her family.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse
Case title: Sudha Chowgule vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
13. [Kunal Kamra] During the hearing of the plea filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amendment to the IT Rules establishing a fact check unit, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai appearing for Stand Up Comedian submitted before the Bombay High Court that a state is treating the citizens of the country like a nanny. The high court was hearing a plea filed by Stand Comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amended IT Rules establishing a fact check unit. Senior Advocate Seervai also submitted to the division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale that the petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the rules under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra vs Union of India
14. [SEBI & Stock Brokers] The Securities Board of India last week told the Bombay High Court that it will not insist on compliance with the notices issued to stock broker firms under the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 requiring securities market intermediaries to intimate if they satisfy certain "fit and proper person" criteria. The statement by Senior Advocate Rafique Dada appearing for the Board before the division bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioner had challenged the notices on the ground that the notices are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution because a person would be disqualified merely on allegations.
Case title: Motilal Oswal Financial Services & Ors vs SEBI
15. [IT Rules & Fact Check Unit] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently during the hearing of petitions challenging the amended IT act establishing a fact check unit questioned whether it would be fake news if an opinion is made about the economy from statistics of the government's source. The bench also observed that the terms 'fake', 'false', 'misleading', and 'government business' were not adequately defined, and no clear boundaries were established for their usage. The high court also questioned if it is permissible in law to have a discretionary authority like a fact-checking unit.
16. [RO Plants At Taloja Jail] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on last week directed the Taloja prison authority to install reverse osmosis (RO) plants in order to provide purified drinking water to the inmates. The prison authority informed the court that they have made necessary arrangements to supply clean drinking water to the prisoners. They added that they have obtained 20 tanks with a capacity of 5,000 litres each from the public works department (PWD) for this purpose, and the installation process is currently underway. The plea for sufficient water for prisoners was made by Abhay Kurundkar, a former police officer who is currently an inmate at Taloja Central Prison, in relation to the Ashwini Bidre death case.
Case title: Abhay Shamsundar Kurundkar vs State of Maharashtra
17. [Job Scam] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a man accused of murdering another man while luring him by offering a job after the police informed the court that no evidence was recovered against him. The victim was a need of a job in 2021 and the accused was working with a company called Job Street Recruitment. The company used to call persons in need of employment and they used to assist such persons. The deceased was called under the same pretext, however, he was assaulted and there is an attempt to rob him.
Bench: Justice SM Modak
Case title: Sagar Chandramauli Ponnala vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
