Read Time: 20 minutes
1. [IT Rules] The Bombay High Court, during the hearing of a petition filed by Kunal Kamra and three others challenging the establishment of the Fact Check Unit (FCU), raised questions about the necessity of such a unit when the Press Information Bureau (PIB) already fulfils the same purpose as the fact-checking unit would. The Bombay High Court posed this question to the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, who was physically present to represent the Central Government during the hearing of the petition filed by Kunal Kamra and three others challenging the establishment of the Fact Check Unit (FCU).
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs Union of India.
Click here to read more.
2. [Rahul Gandhi] The Bombay High Court has called upon the Advocate General, Birendra Saraf, to provide assistance in a petition lodged by Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi challenging the summons issued to him by a magistrate court in connection with a defamation case initiated by a BJP leader. The summons was issued following a complaint filed by Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, a BJP member. Subsequently, in August 2019, the magistrate court issued summons to Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi had allegedly made certain remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a rally in Rajasthan in respect to the purchase of the Rafale Fighter Planes.
Bench: Justice SV Kotwal.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Akasa Air] The Bombay High Court last week ruled that it has jurisdiction over the suit filed by the airline company Akasa Air against the five pilots seeking damages of Rs. 21 crore and compensation of Rs. 18 lakh from each of the pilots for resigning from the company without serving the mandatory 6-month notice period. Akasa Air approached the Bombay High Court in response to the resignation of five of their pilots, who left the company without adhering to the mandatory six-month notice period. The company is seeking Rs. 21 crore in damages from each of the pilots and an additional 18 lakhs for breach of contract.
Bench: Justice SM Modak.
Case title: SNV Aviation vs Captain Gareema Kumar & ors.
4. [IT Rules] Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, stated last week before the Bombay High Court that none of the intermediaries were present before the high court because the rules were formulated in consultation with them. The high court was hearing multiple petitions including stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the amended IT rules establishing a fact check unit. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also clarified that the intermediary would not have the option of doing nothing after a post is flagged by the Fact Check Unit. He said that the intermediary would either have to add a disclaimer to the post or take down the post.
5. [Dream 11] Fantasy sports platform Dream11 has approached the Bombay High Court to contest a show-cause notice issued by GST authorities alleging evasion of Rs. 1200 crores. The petitioner, Sporta Technology, owner of the Dream11 platform, argues that the notices were based on the assumption that Dream11's business is a game of chance rather than a game of skill. In its petition, Dream11 argued that the show-cause notices issued by the authorities contradicted established Supreme Court precedent, which had determined that games hosted on their platform were primarily games of skill. Therefore, it asserted that the show-cause notices violated Article 141 of the Constitution.
Case title: Sporta Technology Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.
6. [Vedio Conferincing] The Bombay High Court has sought information from the state government regarding the availability of video conferencing facilities in each magistrate court in Mumbai and its suburbs. This order was passed in view of an affidavit by the Additional Director General of Police & Inspector General (Prisons & Correctional Services) of the state government explaining why a bail applicant was not produced on various hearing dates. During a bail plea hearing on September 15, the state prisons department's affidavit stated that the accused was not produced before the trial court on certain dates due to the absence of a production warrant.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case Title: Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra.
7. [Article 21] The Bombay High Court recently admonished the Thane Municipal Corporation for its failure to complete the construction of a 100-bed hospital, a project that was initiated by the corporation in 2008 and remains unfinished. The division bench of the high court heard a public interest litigation filed by the Association For Protection of Civil Rights, which alleged a lack of healthcare facilities for residents in the area.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Association For Protection of Civil vs Municipal Corporation of Thane.
8. [HMA 1955] The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently upheld a decision by the trial court while observing that the condition of epilepsy is neither an incurable disease nor can it be considered a mental disorder or psychopathic disorder, for making a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner-husband instituted a plaint against the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) and under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce mainly on the ground that the wife had threatened him to commit suicide and her behaviour was abnormal, leading to a break down in their marriage. The second ground raised by the husband was that the wife was suffering from fits of epilepsy which was incurable, and the condition was not conducive enough for them to cohabit.
Bench: Justice Valmiki SA Menezes and Justice Vinay Joshi.
Case Title: Harish vs Leelavati.
9. [Custody] The Bombay High Court recently granted permission to a woman who secured employment in the United States to take her underage daughter with her. However, the court imposed a deterrent condition to ensure that the child's father in India is granted access to their daughter. Failure to comply with the access orders may result in the mother losing her 50% share in a posh Pune flat to the father, court ordered. The case involves a couple who had been married for two decades and mutually consented to a divorce in 2020. Disputes arose when a Pune court granted custody of the child to the mother but allowed regular access to the father. Over the last three years, both parties filed multiple petitions, including a contempt plea by the husband against the wife for repeatedly violating child access orders. Criminal cases against each other were also initiated but eventually withdrawn.
Bench: Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye.
Case Title: Pooja Shantanu Pashankar @ Pooja Thadani Vs. Shantanu Dhananjay Pashankar.
10. [Detention order] The Bombay High Court has recently quashed and set aside a detention order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in 1993 against a 62-year-old man from Kerala. The detention order was passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, of 1974. The petitioner was apprehended at Mumbai airport on 20th November 1992, when he was leaving for Dubai with a substantial amount of foreign currencies concealed by him. However he was subsequently released on bail.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Abdul Rasheed vs ED & Anr.
11. [IT Rules] The Bombay High Court, on Friday, reserved its judgment in the petitions challenging the amended IT Rules that establish a fact-check unit. The high court was hearing a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild, the News Broadcast Digital Association and the Association of Indian Magazine challenging the amended IT Rules. The petitions had challenged Rule 3(i)(b)(v) of the amendments provides that the Central Government can identify fake or false or misleading content through a fact check unit of the Central Government which must be notified and published in the official gazette.
12. [Rohit Pawar] The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Baramati Agro Ltd, a sugar factory company controlled by MLA Rohit Pawar, the grandnephew of Nationalist Congress Party Chief Sharad Pawar. The court was informed that the company received the closure notice on September 28, 2023, at 2 AM. The MPCB had instructed the company to shut down the factory within 72 hours of issuing the notice. The division bench stayed the notice till October 6 when the matter will be taken up by the high court.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: Baramati Agro Ltd vs Regional Officer Pune MPCB.
13. [Article 21] The Bombay High Court recently observed that deprivation of personal liberty, without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. The accused had sought bail from the high court on the grounds of being incarcerated for 7 ½ years and the release of his co-accused by the high court. The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the bench that the trial had already begun, with 15 witnesses having been examined.
Case title: Akash Satish Chandalia vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
