Read Time: 21 minutes
1. [NCLAT Circuit At Mumbai] The Union of India on Monday sought time to file reply before the Bombay High Court in a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking the establishment of a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai. The plea stated that the then Attorney General KK Venugopal had assured the court that the directions in Madras Bar Association will be followed, and that circuit benches of NCLAT will be established.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne
Cause Title: Nicky Pokar vs UOI
Click here to read more
2. [Mika Singh & Rakhi Sawant] Singer Mika Singh has approached the high court for quashing a 2006 case filed by Actor Rakhi Sawant after Singh allegedly forcibly kissed her at his birthday party, which took place at a restaurant in Mumbai suburbs. Singh was booked for offences under Sections 354 (molestation) and 323 (assault) of the Indian Penal Code. Citing that he and Sawant have settled their differences amicably, he submitted that Sawant had sworn on an affidavit, giving her no objection to granting relief mentioned in the petition.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice PD Naik
Cause Title: Amrik Singh Alias Mika Ajmer Singh vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Suo Moto Cognizance of Plight of Migrants] The suo motu cognizance was taken by the Bombay High Court on the basis of a report from the daily newspaper “The Hindu”. The article in the newspaper stated that about 70% of 500-odd villages in Beed, Osmanabad, Jalna, Latur, and some parts of Nanded and Parbhani districts are emptied every winter. The toils, groups of workers, either stay on the sugar factory premises or in the sugarcane fields, the report said. Further, it also said that families move into temporary structures that provide little shelter as winter turns to summer and then the rains arrive, flooding their makeshift homes.
Cause title: High Court on Its Own Motion
4. [Kunal Kamra & IT Rules] Stand Up Comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging amended Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021). Kamra has challenged the provision that empowers the government to fact-check social media posts through the fact-checking unit of the Central Government and take the posts down from social media. A division bench, however, directed the Central Government to file its reply by 19th April and kept the matter for hearing on 21st April.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Cause Title: Kunal Kamra vs UOI
5. [Trademark Suit - PhonePe & PostPe] The high court refused to grant relief to ‘PhonePe’ in a trademark infringement suit filed by the company against Resilient Innovations Private Limited for using the word ‘PostPe’. The high court said, "At this stage, this Court is unable to agree with the plaintiff that gullible or uneducated persons or even educated and aware customers would be confused between the services of the rival parties. Therefore, on this count also, the plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case in its favour for grant of interim reliefs."
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale
Cause Title: PhonePe Private Limited vs Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd
6. [Rape Threats To Daughter of Virat Kohli & Anushka Sharma] The high court quashed the FIR lodged against the 23-year-old engineer who was accused of sending rape threats to the 10-month-old baby of Indian Cricketer Virat Kohli and Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma. The FIR was quashed after the complainant in the case, Kohli’s manager, Aquilia D’Souza, gave his consent to drop the charges against the accused. In February 2022, the accused filed a petition to quash the FIR, claiming that continuing with the proceedings would cause severe prejudice to him. He further stated that he was a meritorious student and rank-holder in the JEE (Advanced) Exam.
Cause Title: Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
7. [Matrimonial disputes] The high court observed matrimonial disputes constitute the most bitterly fought adversarial litigation and in such cases the role of the court becomes crucial. The observation was made by the court while directing a woman to being her 15-year-old son to India from Thailand so that he could spend time with her father and elder siblings. There were multiple orders passed by the Family Court, High Court, and even the Supreme Court in multiple cases filed by the husband and wife against each other. The two elder siblings who had attained majority were in the custody of the father who went to the USA to study and the 15-year-old was in the custody of the mother.
Bench: ustice RD Dhanuka and Justice Gauri Godse
Cause Title: ABC vs XYZ
8. [Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against Salman Khan] The high court while quashing the FIR against Bollywood Actor Salman Khan, observed that the judicial process should not be the means to harass celebrities without adhering to the procedure of law. “The judicial process need not be a means for needless harassment merely because the Accused is a well-known celebrity and without adhering to the procedure of law, he shall not be subjected to unnecessary oppression at the hands of a complainant, who set in the machinery into motion to satisfy his vendetta and assumed that he was insulted by the cine star,” the court observed.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre
Cause Title: Mohd. Nawaz Iqbal Shaikh & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
9. [Commander in Thief Remark by Rahul Gandhi] The high court adjourned the hearing in the plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for quashing summons issued to him in a complaint filed against him for his remarks against the Prime Minister in 2018. The complaint filed against the Congress leader relates to a remark made by him during a speech in 2018. Gandhi had allegedly called the Prime Minister "Commander in Thief" in his speech referring to the Rafale Deal.
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
Cause Title: Rahul Gandhi vs Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal
10. [NCP Leader Hasan Mushrif & ED] The high court granted interim relief from arrest to former Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Hasan Mushirf in a money laundering case filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate. This came after a Special Court on April 11 rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by the NCP leader. The Special Court while rejecting the pre-arrest plea had granted 3 days to Mushrif to approach the High Court. It was alleged that the money collected from 40000 farmers was diverted to various companies belonging to the three sons of Hasan Mushirf which the agency claimed were shell companies.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai
Cause Title: Hasan Mushrif vs Enforcement Directorate
11. [Sapna Gill & Prithvi Shaw] The high court issued notice to 11 respondents including Indian Cricketer Prithvi Shaw in a plea filed by social media influencer Sapna Gill in connection with an assault case. The writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court seeking direction to quash the FIR registered against Gill on February 17, 2023, at the Oshiwara police station.The FIR was filed against Gill and others for allegedly assaulting Indian cricketer Prithvi Shaw and his friends outside Hotel Sahara Star in Mumbai's Santacruz. In her petition, Gill denied the allegations of assault, abuse, and damage to property by Shaw's friend, who is the complainant in the case. She alleged that the complainant, on Shaw's instructions, falsely implicated her in the case to fulfill his "personal vendetta" and "harass and trap" her.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye
Cause Title: Sapna Gill vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
12. [Drug Manufacturer Not Liable for Not Meeting Standard After Notified Date] The high court observed that a drug manufacturer cannot be held liable for producing medicine for which the prescribed standard was notified after the date of manufacturing of the drug. The court quashed an order passed by the chief judicial magistrate at Nanded, Maharashtra against the manufacturer company of Mediplus Scalp Vein Set. The order summoned the directors of the manufacturing company in a criminal complaint matter.
Bench: Justice Kishore C Sant
Cause Title: Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel vs. State of Maharashtra
13. [Whatsapp Status Against Article 370] The high court refused to quash the FIR registered against a professor by the Kolhapur police for putting up a WhatsApp status regarding the abrogation of Article 370. The professor had put up two statuses on WhatsApp which said (1) August 5 Black Day Jammu & Kashmir under the caption “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy” and (2) 14th August Happy Independence Day Pakistan. Based on this, the Kolhapur police registered an FIR against the professor. A division bench observed that in sensitive matters dissenting views should be expressed after analysis of the whole situation and providing the reasons for the criticism made.
Cause Title: Mr. Javed Ahmed Hajam vs State of Maharashtra
14. [Bail To Engineer Accused of Spying For ISI] The high court recently granted bail to a former engineer of BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd who was booked for spying for Pakistan Intelligence Agency- ISI. Accused Nishant Agarwal was working with the BrahMos Missile Centre in Nagpur in the technical department and was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad. He was then booked under the Official Secrets Act. The single judge bench observed that prima facie there was no material to show that offence was committed by the applicant.
Bench: Justice Anil S Kishor
Cause Title: Nishant Aggrawal vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Please Login or Register
