Daily Judgments of 20 June
Bombay High Court
WP/13016/2024
Parties: SUJAL MANGALA BIRWADKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SPECIAL ASSISTANCE DEPT. AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Constitutional Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sujal Mangala Birwadkar, holding that he is not eligible to be declared as belonging to the 'Chambhar' Scheduled Caste community despite his mother's caste.
The court found that the petitioner did not face deprivation, humiliation, or lack of opportunities during his upbringing and education, even though his mother was from a Scheduled Caste community. The court relied on previous judgments establishing that a person born to parents of different castes must demonstrate actual suffering of disadvantages due to the Scheduled Caste status of the parent, which was not proven in this case. The petitioner had the advantage of his father's upper caste status during his schooling, and his mother was employed in a central police force, suggesting a satisfactory lifestyle. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to declare the petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.
WP/13548/2024
Parties: ASHISH BALAJI SAWANT Vs JALINDAR TUKARAM KHAIRE AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Constitutional Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, Ashish Balaji Sawant, challenging the order of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee that invalidated his caste claim. The High Court bench unanimously held that the Petitioner had attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the Court by suppressing material facts and relying on forged documents. The Court found that the Petitioner's conduct was inconsistent with the constitutional ethos and amounted to a constitutional fraud, striking at the very foundation of the affirmative action framework. The High Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
WP/16958/2024
Parties: AVINASH DOMINIC GHOSAL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court held that the construction carried out by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on the writ property is illegal and unauthorized, and cannot be regularized under Section 53(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
The court rejected the arguments made by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5's counsel, relying on its own previous ruling and Supreme Court judgments that have deprecated the practice of bypassing regulations and building control norms. The court directed the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation to demolish the illegal construction and initiate prosecution against the concerned respondents within 3 weeks. It also directed the Municipal Commissioner to take action against erring officers responsible for not preventing the illegal construction.
The court granted a 3-week stay on the implementation of the order to allow Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to approach the Supreme Court, but made it clear that no further construction activity would be permitted during this period.
WP/7830/2024
Parties: KIRAN RAMESH SHINDE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the petitions filed by two judicial employees challenging their transfers, holding that the transfers were valid and within the administrative discretion of the competent authority. The court found that the transfers were part of the annual general transfer process, and not a mid-term or punitive transfer as alleged by the petitioners. The court noted that the competent authority had the power to transfer employees even before the completion of the usual tenure, as per the exceptions provided under the Transfer Act. The court also referred to the complaints received against the petitioners from the bar associations, which indicated misconduct, and held that the transfer was a reasonable measure to maintain discipline within the judicial establishment.
WP/1807/2024
Parties: MEENANATH SHIVRAM PATIL AND ANR Vs VIVEK BALARAM DESHMUKH AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court held that the respondents (Nos. 1 and 2) had constructed illegal buildings without obtaining the necessary permissions from CIDCO, despite being aware of the requirement. The Court found that the respondents had approached the court with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts and making false statements, which is not tolerable under the law. The High Court dismissed the civil suit filed by the respondents to prevent the demolition of the illegal constructions, as it was filed with an oblique motive to frustrate the pending writ petition. The Court ordered CIDCO to demolish the illegal constructions within 4 weeks and directed the authorities to take appropriate action against the concerned officers and developers.
ITXA/512/2003
Parties: M/S CARONA LIMITED Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPL. RANGE-29. MUMBAI.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court that the assessee, M/s. Carona Limited, had made a bona fide claim for deducting an amount of Rs. 22.21 lakhs as additional bonus liability, even though it was ultimately disallowed under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act as the actual payment was made in a subsequent year. The court found that merely making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under Section 271(1)(c), and there must be a finding of concealment of income or furnishing of false information, which was not present in this case. Accordingly, the court set aside the Tribunal's order upholding the penalty and restored the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had cancelled the penalty.
WP/3602/2022
Parties: HIROO TULJARAM SHAHANI AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held the petitioners (occupants of the ground floor premises) guilty of contempt for their willful and deliberate breach of the undertaking given to the court to remove unauthorized constructions and restore the premises to its original condition. The court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna, which held that deliberate conduct aimed at frustrating court proceedings or circumventing its decisions can amount to contempt.
The court found the petitioners' conduct to be obstinate and reflective of a lack of respect for the court's authority. Despite multiple opportunities provided by the court over a period of five months, the petitioners failed to comply with the undertaking. The court imposed a sentence of two weeks simple imprisonment and a fine on the petitioners, though the imprisonment was later suspended for four weeks at the request of the petitioners' counsel.
WP/4540/2024
Parties: AJIT DHARIA Vs MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the tenant, holding that the petition is not maintainable. The court found that the tenant's demands, seeking the setting aside of the Occupancy Certificate issued to the developer, possession of the flat reserved for the tenant, and a direction to the landlord to execute an agreement on the same terms as other tenants, amount to a "sophisticated form of extortion" that is not permissible.
The court noted that the rights and entitlements of the tenant under redevelopment of a tenanted structure are well protected under the relevant laws and precedents. However, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord, and any civil dispute regarding the agreement must be resolved through the civil court process, not a writ petition.
The court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, emphasizing that the tenant cannot use the writ jurisdiction to obtain an illegitimate windfall.
WP/3508/2024
Parties: STAR DEEP CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MR. ANKIT JAIN Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner co-operative housing society, holding that the issues raised were property disputes between the lessor (respondent society) and the lessee (petitioner society), which cannot be decided under the court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, which held that property disputes between private parties cannot be entertained in writ proceedings.
WP/1612/2024
Parties: OM VISHWASHANTI CHS (PROPOSED) THROUGH HIS CHIEF PROMOTER Vs MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a slum society and a developer, holding that the issues raised were essentially a private dispute between the parties and not suitable for adjudication under the court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court observed that slum colonies are often created by "slumlords" and the responsibility for their removal lies with the state authorities like the municipal corporation.
The court concluded that the petitioners, as illegal occupants, cannot dictate the choice of developer or impose terms on the state authorities.
WP/5337/2024
Parties: SURENDRA SHAH Vs BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court held that the constructions on the "writ land" owned by the petitioner were illegal and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish these structures within four weeks. The court relied on recent Supreme Court judgments that emphasize the need for courts to take a strict approach in dealing with unauthorized constructions, stating that illegalities cannot be protected and that the law should not come to the rescue of those who flout its requirements. The respondents were unable to show any sanctioned plan permitting the construction, and the court found no basis to protect the illegal structures.
WP/14861/2019
Parties: PRABHAKAR MOHINIRAJ WABALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE KISHORE CHANDRAKANT SANT
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the liquor license was granted solely in the name of the petitioner, and not in the name of the partnership firm with the respondent. The court found that the respondent had no independent right to the license, and the petitioner was entitled to apply for the renewal of the license. The court quashed the order of the Minister that had granted the license to the respondent, and ruled that the petitioner should be allowed to apply for the renewal of the license.
Calcutta High Court
CRA/564/2010
Parties: BISWATOSH MONDAL & ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 448, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as there were several contradictions and omissions in the prosecution's evidence. The High Court held that the trial court's judgment and order of conviction was not sustainable, and ordered the appellants to be released from bail.
WPA/3897/2025
Parties: SMT. KAJARI KARMAKER @ KAJARI MARICK vs THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick, holding that she was not entitled to the family pension claimed from the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) based on her deceased husband's pension.
The court found that while the petitioner's husband had affirmed affidavits and published the change of his name from "Kartick Chandra Marik" to "Gopal Chandra Karmakar", he did not follow the required procedure of publishing the name change in the Gazette of India.
Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in the husband's statements about his father's name, casting doubt on the credibility of the name change. Given the lack of proper documentation to support the name change, the court held that the grant of family pension requires adherence to the prescribed rules and procedures, and dismissed the writ petition.
WPA/11520/2025
Parties: PROKASH MANDAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the petitioners, as wait-listed candidates in the same recruitment process, have an arguable case to challenge the validity of the West Bengal government's scheme to provide livelihood support to the non-teaching staff whose appointments were terminated by the Supreme Court's order.
The court noted that the scheme prima facie appears to be in conflict with the Supreme Court's judgment, which had found the appointments to be the result of fraud and cheating. Providing financial assistance to such "tainted" candidates raises concerns about unjust enrichment and undermining the rule of law.
The High Court granted interim relief by restraining the state from implementing the scheme until the final disposal of the writ petitions. The court directed the state to file an affidavit in response, and scheduled further hearings on the matter.
The High Court also held that the pendency of the state's review petitions before the Supreme Court does not preclude it from examining the validity of the scheme, as the original judgment was final and conclusive. The court noted that the state's conflicting stand on the matter was improper.
WPA/20672/2022
Parties: SRI TARUN KANTI NASKAR vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by an assistant teacher, holding that recovery of the excess salary paid to him due to an administrative mistake in fixing his pay scale, rather than any fraudulent representation by him, would be harsh and iniquitous.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel cases, the court observed that in such cases where the overpayment was not due to the employee's fault, the employer cannot recover the excess amount, as it would adversely impact the employee's livelihood and financial planning. The court set aside the order passed by the respondent authorities directing the recovery of the overpaid amount of ₹21,770 from the petitioner.
CRR/812/2023
Parties: SITAL CHANDRA KAIBARTYA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the accused Prapti Banerjee from the charges under Sections 326A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that while there were witness statements mentioning a person in a red shirt fleeing the scene, there was no direct evidence implicating the accused in the alleged acid attack. Additionally, the court noted the lack of a chemical examiner's report to confirm the nature of the liquid that caused the injuries, and the medical reports indicating the injuries were simple in nature. Considering the absence of concrete evidence to establish an acid attack, the High Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the trial court.
CRR/2425/2017
Parties: ASHOKE KUMAR BASU vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by Ashoke Kumar Basu, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him under Sections 341, 323, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the allegations made in the complaint, even if containing some inconsistencies, disclosed cognizable offenses on their face, and that the standard at the stage of quashing is not to ascertain the reliability or truthfulness of the allegations, but whether they constitute an offense. The court further held that mere animosity between neighbors or a general claim of private vendetta does not automatically negate a prima facie case, and the petitioner failed to present concrete and convincing material to demonstrate that the initiation of the proceedings was a clear abuse of process. The court concluded that the present case did not present the kind of glaring absurdity or inherent improbability that would warrant quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
CRR/3040/2022
Parties: RAJU ADHIKARI AND ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court held that while the allegations against the husband (petitioner no. 1) were sufficiently specific and severe to warrant a trial, the case against the other petitioners (mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and nephew) warranted further scrutiny through a mandatory preliminary inquiry.
The court found that the allegations against the extended family members were more generalized and "omnibus" in nature, lacking specific details or overt acts attributable to each individual, particularly in light of their claimed geographical separation from the matrimonial home. Additionally, the court noted the significant and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which raised concerns about the credibility of the allegations.
Citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, the High Court directed the Investigating Agency to conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the active and direct involvement of the other petitioners before the proceedings against them can continue. The court held that this preliminary inquiry is essential to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure that only credible cases with specific and substantiated allegations are pursued to trial, while simultaneously protecting individuals from generalized or malicious implication.
The High Court partially allowed the quashing petition, dismissing the quashing of proceedings against the husband, but staying the criminal proceedings against the other petitioners until the completion of the preliminary inquiry and submission of the report to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
IP-COM/12/2025
Parties: ITC LIMITED vs PRAVIN KUMAR AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the petitioner (ITC Limited) has made out a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against the respondents. The court found that while the petitioner does not have exclusive rights over the word "GOLD", the respondents' use of a similar trade dress and device was likely to cause consumer confusion and constituted infringement.
The court also held that the respondents' copyright registrations were invalid and that the impugned mark was a "slavish imitation" of the petitioner's artistic work, constituting copyright infringement. Additionally, the court found that the respondents were acting in concert as a "web of companies and associate concerns" to sell the infringing products, which amounted to counterfeiting and trafficking.