Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and S.M. Modak, JJ., while addressing a matter with regard to Standard Operating Procedure in regard to e-learning/ digital methods for education, held that,

If the Standard Operating Procedure encourages e-learning, any citizen of India questioning its intentions and purposes would only be acting against interest and well being of his own country.

Bench on considering the present petition, observed that prima facie the petition represents only a regressive step in the field of education.

Petition does not point out any inherent contradictions, defects and lacunae in the Standard Operating Procedure dated 15th June, 2020 so as to term it arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable and hence amenable to interference by this Court on the ground of violation of any fundamental right to education.

Further the court stated that if there are any difficulties in implementation of Standard Operating Procedure, they could be sorted out by the State Government and if required also by the Union Government provided they are appropriately pointed out.

“…We are in the 21st century where the world is being governed digitally in a greater way and therefore, the SOP which prescribes e-learning and promotes digital and virtual methods of learning cannot but be hailed as a big progressive measure taken by the Government in making digital position of India stronger and firmer in the Comity of Nations.”

Further the Court added that some issues with the effective implementation can come up and as the difficulties raised by the petitioner, they are external factors to the policy and when the same can be corrected, policy cannot be unconstitutional or defective.

Hence, Court asked the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned with regard to the defects in the implementation of the SOP. [Imran Israel Sheikh v. Union of India, LD-VC-PIL No. 389 of 2020, decided on 06-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Our country has always been proud of progeny like Shravan Kumar, who to fulfill the wish of his poor, blind and ageing parents, took them on a pilgrimage by carrying them on his shoulder in two baskets put on either side of the bamboo stick, and whilst trying to collect water on his way from a stream, to quench the thirst of his parents, became a target of King Dashrath’s arrow.”

–Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and N.R. Borkar, JJ., while addressing a matter wherein a 70 year old mother was physically and mentally harassed by one of her daughters,  noted that,

“…it is unfortunate that in the last several years courts are repeatedly witnessing, old parents knocking at its doors, in the twilight years of their lives seeking redressal of their grievances against their children.”

A 70-Year old mother had approached the High Court alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her daughter (respondent 1).

Court while addressing the said matter stated that, the welfare of the parents / senior citizens is of paramount importance, ascertain the seriousness and correctness of the allegations made, pass appropriate order/s ensuring that no injustice or inconvenience is caused to either party.

Bench in it’s earlier order, when the mother approached the court for relief, had laid down the following order:

Bench assured the petitioner that if she lives in her own flat and face any harassment from respondent 1 or her son, she will be provided all assistance, both by the Court and police authorities.

Installation of CCTV cameras inside the flat has been directed.

Respondent 1 and her son, both have been sternly warned . Senior Inspector of local police station under who jurisdiction the flat come has been directed to give all assistance to the petitioner.

Respondent 1 and her son will not obstruct entry of any of the relatives whom petitioner wants to meet. Also respondent 1 and her son are not allowed to invite or bring any of their guests to the flat without prior permission of petitioner through her advocate.

What is the present situation in the above matter?

Respondent 1 daughter has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner mother was reacting/over-reacting at the instance of her other sibling namely her sister – Vaishali, who has admittedly temporarily come down with her family from Singapore.

Petitioner refusing the above made an offer to allow respondent 1 and her son to reside in one of her flats at Nalasopara on and from 15th July, 2020 and only on her agreement petitioner would be able to come back to her flat for the remainder of her life and stay in peace.

Court was happy to note that respondent 1 daughter and her son have undertaken to vacate the said flat with a period of 8 weeks.

Keeping the interest of the family and their rights, in mind, Court passed the following order:

  • Undertaking given by the respondent 1 and her son that they will vacate the flat with 8 weeks — is accepted.
  • If the Respondent 1 along with her son, are unable to find premises on leave and license basis within a period of 08 weeks from today, the Petitioner shall allow them to reside in her fat at Nalasopara, until they find a premises of their choice on leave and license basis.
  • Respondent 1 shall pay maintenance charges, electricity, telephone, etc. for the period that she and her son occupy the flat at Nalasopara.
  • Petitioner shall move to her flat once respondent 1 and her son vacate the flat.
  • Since the share certificate issued by the Society admittedly stands in the sole name of the husband of the Petitioner, who passed away intestate on 26th January, 2011, the Petitioner shall not sell, alienate, encumber and part with possession or create third party rights in respect of the said fat during her lifetime, without seeking permission of this Court and without giving notice to all the legal heirs of her husband. However, the Petitioner will be entitled to execute her Will and bequeath her share in the said fat to person/s of her choice.
  • If any of the daughters of the Petitioner and / or any other relatives or any person starts residing in the said fat along with the Petitioner as a Caretaker, such person shall vacate the said fat immediately upon the demise of the Petitioner and shall not make any claim on the said fat, on the ground that he / she / they were residing therein along with the Petitioner.
  • Since Curt has not finally determined any allegations made by either parties, it is made clear that non on the allegations stand established. Petitioner or their family members/ or any other persons hall not publicise any allegations against each other in any manner whatsoever .

Matter was disposed off in the above terms. [Rajani B. Somkuwar v. Sarita Somkuwar, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 722  , decided on 19-06-2020]

Also Read:

Bom HC | “If children cannot take care of their parents and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell”; Court sternly warns daughter to not harass mother physically & mentally

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and the Administrative Judges of the Bombay High Court have decided that the High Court of Bombay and Courts subordinate to it shall not avail Summer Vacation, if after 3rd May, 2020 and before 7th June, 2020, the normal Court working is restored by lifting the lock-down.

During the period of Summer vacation if normal Court working is restored

The working hours for the Subordinate Courts during the said period, if normal court working starts, shall be as in force prior to Covid-19 pandemic.

The modified working hours for the High Court, if any, from 08th June, 2020 onwards shall be notified separately.

Access the Circular here: CIRCULAR 

Bombay High Court

[Circular dt. 21-04-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Statement

Supreme Court Collegium on 18th April, 2020 has recommended elevation of Mr Justice Dipankar Datta, Judge, Calcutta High Court as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

Justice Dipankar Datta

Born on February 9, 1965. Son of late Salil Kumar Datta, a former Judge of the High Court at Calcutta, and brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, former Judge of the Supreme Court. Awarded LL.B. degree by the University of Calcutta (First batch of 5 year Law course) in 1989. Enrolled as an Advocate on November 16, 1989. Practised mainly in the High Court at Calcutta, as well as in the Supreme Court of India and other High Courts in Constitutional and Civil matters. Was the Junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal from May 16, 2002 to January 16, 2004. Was Counsel for the Union of India since 1998. Appeared for a number of educational authorities and institutions including the University of Calcutta, W.B. School Service Commission and W.B. Board of Secondary Education. Was Guest Lecturer on Constitutional Law of India in the University College of Law, University of Calcutta, from 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Was elevated to the Bench of the High Court at Calcutta as a permanent Judge on June 22, 2006.

Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statement dt. 18-04-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., on 15-02-2020 noted a complaint filed by two Advocates – Umesh Vasant Mohite and Hetal Arvind Pandya wherein it was stated by the Advocates that,

An order has been passed by in the name of Justice G.S. Patel on 01-12-2019.

G.S. Patel Justice in the above regard states that,

“The entire document is a forgery and there is no such order. Several reasons for this One, the document purports to be an order in the High Court’s Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ‘In Its Revenue and Property Division’. There is no such Division. It purports to be in a Commercial Succession Petition (L) No. 23520 of 2019. There is no such proceeding and there could be no such proceeding as a “Commercial Succession Petition”. There is no Testamentary Petition with a five-digit lodging number.”

“Entire formatting of the documents, including the fonts, line spacing, etc, is not in the manner in which I make my orders. There is no footer of the date and page number which is my invariable practice for the last several years.”

Further, he adds,

“Document purports to be made on 01-12-2019. That was a Sunday. No such order could have ever been made.”

“Since the offending document uses this very file nape ‘909- CARBPL1501-19-CuDOC’, it necessarily follows that though allegedly dated 1st December 2019, the offending document could have been generated or fabricated only after 23rd December 2019.”

It seems there are glaring indicators of this document being fabricated, forged and got up.

Purpose of this forgery is evident from paragraph 7 because it seeks to create rights in favour of the so-called petitioner.

He further observed that,

Satishchandra Goradia died just 15 days ago. This order was brought to the notice by the learned Advocates, Mr Umesh Vasant Mohite and Advocate Ms Hetal Arvind Pandya by Mr Parth Goradia, grand nephew (Satishchandra’s brother’s son’s son). Parth states that he obtained this document from his father, and that his father, in turn, obtained it from one Mr Ashok Vageriya.”

On enquiring with Chamber staff,  it was found that there is no Advocate Ashok Vageriya registered with an Advocate’s code in this Court’s System or records, nor is there a registered Clerk of any such person.

Justice Patel has asked the Registrar (Legal & Research) to take immediately:

  • Take appropriate proceedings including under Section 340(3)(a) and Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Write to Indian Bank and Bank of Baroda at their respective Head Offices mentioning the two term deposits.
  • Summon before himself Mr Ashok Vageriya and Mr Parth Goradia for an explanation as to this document.

Finally, Justice Patel highlighted that,

“…Such an order could never have been passed by me in any Succession Petition because testamentary matters were not even within my sitting assignment in December 2019.”

“There is no manner of doubt that the entire document is not only a forgery but a clumsy one.”

[Testamentary Complaint No. 1 of 2020, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 279Order dated 15-02-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ. resolves to recommend that Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge, Gauhati High Court, be transferred, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Bombay High Court.

Collegium Resolution

[Notification dt. 28-08-2019]

Supreme Court of India


Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice A.S. Oka as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court.

Mr Justice A.S. Oka is the senior-most Judge from Bombay High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Mr Justice A.S. Oka suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be two Chief Justices from Bombay High Court which is the second largest High Court in the country with a sanctioned strength of 94 Judges.

[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following 14 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court as Permanent Judges:

  1. Sandeep Kashinath Shinde
  2. Rohit Baban Deo
  3. Bharati Harish Dangre
  4. Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal
  5. Riyaz Iqbal Chagla
  6. Manish Pitale
  7. Sunil Kesharao Kotwal
  8. Arun Digambarrao Upadhye
  9. Mangesh Shivajirao Patil
  10. Arun Madhav Dhavale
  11. Prithviraj Keshavrao Chavan
  12. Murlidhar Ganpatrao Giratkar
  13. Viba Vasant Kankanwadi
  14. Sopan Mahadu Gavhane

[Notification dt. 05-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman JJ.  resolves to recommend that Mr Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court [PHC: Delhi], be transferred, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Bombay High Court.

[Dated: 28-03-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment as Judges of Bombay High Court was made for 10 Advocates, namely:

1. Shri Avinash G. Gharote
2. Shri N.B. Suryawanshi
3. Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh
4. Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah
5. Shri J.R. Shah
6. Shri Madhav Jamdar
7. Shri Anil Kilor
8. Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja
9. Shri Devidas Pangam
10. Shri Milind Narendra Jadhav

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Avinash S. Deshmukh, (2) Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah, (3) J.R. Shah, and (4) Devidas Pangam, (mentioned at
Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 9 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Bombay High Court.

As regards Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for being taken up on receipt of certain information from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Collegium Resolutions

Dated: 25-03-2019

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 14 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Mr Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
2. Mr Justice Rohit Baban Deo
3. Mrs Justice Bharati H. Dangre
4. Mr Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
5. Mr Justice Riyaz I. Chagla
6. Mr Justice Manish Pitale
7. Mr Justice S.K. Kotwal
8. Mr Justice A.D. Upadhye
9. Mr Justice Mangesh S. Patil
10. Mr Justice A.M. Dhavale
11. Mr Justice P.K. Chavan
12. Mr Justice M.G. Giratkar
13. Mrs Justice V.V. Kankanwadi
14. Mr Justice S.M. Gavhane

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated 26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium to assess the Judgments of the above-named recommendees, has submitted its report.

In view of the above, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S. A Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolved to recommend that Mr Justices (1) Sandeep K. Shinde, (2) Rohit Baban Deo, (3) Mrs. Bharati H. Dangre, (4) Sarang V. Kotwal, (5) Riyaz I. Chagla, (6) Manish Pitale, (7) S.K. Kotwal, (8) A.D. Upadhye, (9) Mangesh S. Patil, (10) A.M. Dhavale, (11) P.K. Chavan (12) M.G. Giratkar (13) Mrs. V.V. Kankanwadi and (14) S.M. Gavhane, Additional Judges be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Bombay High Court.

Collegium Resolutions

[Dated: 11-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, has transferred Shri Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu (Judge of the Kerala High Court), as a Judge of the Bombay High Court and directed him to assume charge of his office in the Bombay High Court on or before 20-03-2019.

[Notification dt. 06-03-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ., remanded the matter to Bombay High Court while stating that entire issue should necessarily be examined on the basis of facts and law.

In the present matter, the facts concerning the background of the case are that the appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act for violation of several provisions of the said Act in execution of one housing project and while allotting the flats purchased by the parties in the said housing project.

The issue in the present matter arose when the Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the complaint filed due to which the appellant had to approach the High Court by filing leave to appeal under Section 378(4)  CrPC, which was declined and further the appellant filed the present special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the main issue that arose was whether the High Court was justified in declining leave to file an appeal against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate?

Hence, the Supreme Court, on the analysis and observance of the facts and submissions in the present case, concluded its decision by allowing the appeal dismissed by the High Court in order to question the legality and correctness of the order passed under Section 378(4) CrPC. The Apex Court in a very clear tone stated that the “High Court ought to have granted leave to the appellant to file criminal appeal and in consideration of the facts of the case and the High Court should have examined the entire issue on facts and law.”

High Court was requested to expedite the hearing of the appeal in lieu of the case being quite old. [Dahisar Saraswati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1926, decided on 12-10-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Admitting the petition against the order giving relief to the directors of the companies struck off by the Registrar of Companies last year, Supreme Court stayed Bombay High Court’s order on the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

In accordance to the stated order of the Bombay High Court, the companies’ directors who had been disqualified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) no longer stood to be disqualified as had been directed to the Registrar of Companies.

Further, if any other High Court had issued any such order as that of the Bombay High Court, then all of those similar orders would stand stayed in around 2000 cases.

It is pertinent to note that in September last year the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had disqualified more than 3 lakh directors of various companies that failed to file financial statements and annual returns for 3 consecutive years.