Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [BMC Wards] The high court has dismissed a plea filed by Raju Sripad Pednekar, a former corporator of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction, challenging the ordinance passed by the current Eknath Shinde government reducing the number of BMC wards to 227 which were increased during the Maha Vikas Aghadi government to 236. The high court while dismissing the petition said that there was no substance in the petition. “We find no substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed,” the court said.
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MW Chandwani
Cause Title: Raju Sirpad Pednekar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Assault Against Girlfriend] The high court recently quashed and set aside an order of conviction of a man who was sentenced to two years of jail term for assaulting his girlfriend. The single-judge bench observed that the dignity of women should be protected at any cost but it does not absolve the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the order of conviction and sentence whereby he was sent to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment for outraging the modesty of her girlfriend. The man was booked under Section 354 and Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code. The man was also booked under the POCSO Act since the girl was 17 years old.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre
Cause Title: Samir Rajesh Sathe @ Samir Hussain Shaikh vs State of Maharastra & Anr.
3. [1993 Mumbai Blast] The high court recently rejected the plea of Sardar Shahvali Khan- a convict of the 1993 Mumbai blast seeking transfer to an open prison under Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules,1971. The bench observed that the inmates under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, can be disqualified for incarceration in an open jail. Sardar Khan is a convict in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb blast case. He is serving a life sentence in Harsul Central Prison in Aurangabad after being convicted under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, 1987 (conspiracy, attempt, abetment, incitement, or facilitation of a terrorist act) and Section 120B of the IPC. He requested a transfer under the Maharashtra Open Prison Rules, 1971.
Bench: Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Abhay S Waghwase
Cause Title: Sardar s/o Shahvali Khan vs. State of Maharashtra
4. [Narendra Dhabholkar Murder] The high court discontinued the court-monitored investigation into the murder of Narendra Dhabolkar. "No further monitoring is required in view of the Supreme Court guidelines," the high court said. Dabholkar was assassinated in 2013 by unknown assailants who were believed to be opposed to his work in exposing superstitions and promoting rationalism. The Central Bureau of Investigation had taken over the case in 2015 after which 5 accused came to be arrested. The Bombay High Court started monitoring the investigation in 2015 and the trial of the case commenced in 2021.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice PD Naik
Cause Title: Mukta Dhabolkar vs CBI
5. [SFIO Investigation Against Jet Airways founder] The Bombay High Court recently reprimanded the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) for its extended and endless investigation into the alleged fraud committed by Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita Goyal, involving a sum of Rs 7,000 crores. Justice Dere emphasized that the SFIO must bring their investigation to a logical end, stating that investigations cannot go on endlessly without closure. The SFIO counsel, Hiten Venegaonkar, informed the court that the fraud was of a large magnitude and that Naresh Goyal was not cooperating fully with the investigation. The court remarked that the agency also had capable and efficient officers.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh
Cause Title: Naresh Goyal & Anita Goyal vs Enforcement Directorate
6. [Parents In Laws; Section 125 CrPC] The high court held that parents-in-law will not be able to claim maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the CrPC. “Thus this question was also fallen for consideration in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2017, wherein this Court has clearly held that the parents-in-law will not be entitled to claim maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law. It is held that it is not the scheme of legislature and the legislature has not included parents-in-law in Section 125. The list given of the relations is exhaustive and there is no scope for any other interpretation” the court noted.
Bench: Justice Kishor C Sant
Cause Title: Shobha Sanjay Tidke vs Kishanrao Ramrao Tidke
7. [Minor's rape] The high court has recently upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old man in a rape case while observing that a six-year-old cannot be expected to know the full name of the person who raped her. “We would say that it cannot be expected from a girl of six years that she would tell the full name of the other person, who is residing in the nearby area. She would know that person with the first or last name/surname or may identify that person by the name of the person's child/children i.e. father of a particular boy/girl. Giving full name of the accused by the mother from the said nickname therefore cannot be viewed from an angle of implication of the accused” the court observed.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice YG Khabragade
Cause Title: Satish Nandre vs State of Maharashtra & XYZ
8. [Pune Metro] The high court recently disposed of a PIL filed seeking a probe into the quality of the construction of the Pune Metro Rail Project. Court observed that as per the report of the COEP Technological University, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, an expert faculty to undertake re-examination of the work had been appointed. "The same shall be done in all seriousness. The copy of the report of expert faculty shall also be provided to the Petitioner," court, therefore, ordered while disposing of the PIL.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne
Cause Title: Narayan Yeshvant Kochak Anr vs Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd & Ors
9. [Domestic Violence On Foreign Soil] The high court has recently held that an Indian court can take cognizance of a domestic violence case under Domestic Violence Act 2005 even if the offence is committed on foreign soil. “It, therefore, goes without saying that though the Domestic Violence Act extends to the whole of India as provided under Section 1 of the D.V. Act, the domestic violence caused on foreign soil could also be taken cognizance by invoking Section 27 (1) (a) and (b),” the court noted. The high court was hearing an appeal filed against the order of the magistrate court rejecting the application of the husband who contended that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a domestic violence complaint as it had allegedly occurred outside India.
Bench: Justice GA Sanap
Cause Title: XYZ vs ABC
10. [Remarriage During Appeal Period] The high court recently refused to grant any relief to a divorced woman who remarried a German National during the appeal period while observing that it was a classic case of litigants trying to overreach the provisions of law. "This Interim Application is a classic example of increasing tendency amongst the litigants to try to overreach the provisions of Law by creating a situation, which is difficult to reverse, thereby making pending proceedings infructuous. In the present case, such effort is made by a wife in a matrimonial dispute arising out of divorce proceedings,” the order noted. The wife during the appeal period of 90 days remarried one Pradip Mannadiar, a German national of Indian origin, and at the time of that marriage, she was not aware of the appeal filed by the husband against the divorce decree.
Bench: Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye
Cause Title: ABC vs XYZ
11. [Loudspeakers At Mosque and Shamianas]
A senior citizen has filed a plea before the Bombay High Court against the noise pollution caused by 19 Mosques and Shamianas/Pandals used by slum dwellers. The plea, filed through Advocate Prerak Chaudri by Mahendra Sapre, a retired marine engineer, highlighted that Sapre is a senior citizen suffering from high blood pressure and other cardiovascular issues. It also stated that Sapre has three stents in his heart and is a patient with chronic blood pressure. During the hearing last week, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne inquired whether the petition was against a particular religion. Advocate Prerak Chaudhri responded that most of the noise pollution due to the demography of the petitioner's residence came from a particular religion. Still, the petitioner would welcome high court orders that impose similar rules against all religious festivals, he told.
Cause Title: Mahendra Sapre vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
12. [Kunal Kamra & IT Rules] The Union of India in its reply to the petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amended IT Rules establishing fact-checking unit has stated that fact-checking through the fact-checking unit is a globally well-established mechanism for dealing with fake news and misinformation. The government in its affidavit has cited the international research conducted by MIT which said that falsehoods are 70% more likely to be retweeted on Twitter than the truth and false news reached 1500 people six times faster than the truth. Further, the Union has told the high court that since its 40 months of launch in December 2019, the fact check unit had responded to 39266 queries from the public.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Cause Title: Kunal Kamra vs UOI
13. [Senior Citizens Act 2007] The high court recently observed that Proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 should not be used to grab property illicitly. “Proceedings under the MWPSC Act are not meant to be used to grab property illicitly. What has been done is a fraud on the Court and a fraud on the statute,” the court observed. The high court was hearing a revision plea filed by a daughter against the order of the court dated 25 November 2021.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar
Cause Title: Shweta Shetty vs State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary & Ors
14. [Tadoba Tiger Reserve] The high court while dealing with a case related to the eviction of a tribal at Tadoba Tiger Reserve recently observed that prima facie it appeared that the forest official wanted to evict the tribal without following due process of law. “In the present matter, prima facie, it appears that, without following due process, the defendants want to evict the plaintiff from the land which is in his possession since long,” the court noted. The high court was hearing a case wherein a Civil Revision Application was filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest seeking dismissal of a suit filed by a tribal.
Bench: Justice MS Jawalkar
Cause Title: Assistant Conservator of Forest vs State of Maharashtra & Bhante Gyanjoti Thero
15. [Removal On Proved Misconduct Serves Public Interest] The high court recently set aside an order of the State Government reversing the decision of the Divisional Commissioner of removing a woman as a Sarpanch while observing that removal of office bearer for proved misconduct serves a larger public interest and strengthens democracy. The court was considering a plea challenging the Rural Development Minister's decision not to remove Pratima Gaikar from her position as Sarpanch of Ambivali village in Raigad district. The Minister had reversed an order issued by the Divisional Commissioner on April 19, 2022, which had called for Gaikar's removal due to her misconduct.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar
Cause Title: Sandip Khidbide vs Pratima Gaikar
Please Login or Register
