Current's
WEEKLY EMAIL SERVICE
[Maharashtra Law Updates - Supreme Court - Bombay High Court]
Issue No: 25 of 2025
Issue Date: 21/06/2025
INDEX
Part 1 - Latest Maharashtra GRs
Part 2 - Latest Changes in Maharashtra Laws
Part 3 - Supreme Court and Bombay High Court
PART 1
LATEST MAHARASHTRA GRs
[1] - Law and Judiciary Department
Prescribing Disposal Norms for Quasi-Judicial Work of Joint Charity Commissioners, Deputy Charity Commissioners and Assistant Charity Commissioners (excluding Judicial Officers) in the Charity Organisation.
To View GR : Click
Here
[2] - Co-operation, Textiles and Marketing Department
Regarding fixing the terms and conditions for providing margin money loan for working capital to the cooperative sugar factories in the state through the Maharashtra Government (Routed Through State Government) from the National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC).
To View GR : Click
Here
[3] - Persons with Disabilities Welfare Department
Regarding granting approval on grant basis to the workshop run by Suhit Jeevan Trust, Pen, Raigad District, and Ekalavya Business Training Center, Pen, Raigad District, which is run on a grant-free basis by NGOs in the state.
To View GR : Click
Here
[4] - School Education and Sports Department
Regarding the formation of a committee to make recommendations regarding the issues of employees working on a contractual basis under the Samagra Shiksha Yojana.
To View GR : Click
Here
[5] - Revenue and Forest Department
Regarding distribution of funds for 36-Assistive Grants (Salary) under this scheme to Chandrapur Forest Administration, Development and Management Prabodhini, Chandrapur for the year 2025-26 (2415-1077).
To View GR : Click
Here
[6] - Industries, Energy and Labour Department
Regarding the establishment of a State Mining Program and Monitoring Committee to review the progress and take measures in accordance with the difficulties encountered in the process after the approval of the mining lease and after the highest bidder is declared after the e-auction of the major mining lease, till the actual excavation and transportation from the mining area is started.
To View GR : Click Here
[7] - Revenue and Forest Department
Regarding regularization of land acquired for the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project in Taluka Paithan, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar -- Applicant- Ambadas Jamnadas Kamble
To View GR : Click
Here
[8] - Revenue and Forest Department
Regarding providing funds for deployment of National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) units to deal with possible flood situations in various districts during the monsoon period.
To View GR : Click
Here
[9] - Revenue and Forest Department
Regarding the implementation of affidavit of small family as a necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Revenue Servant (Kotwal).
To View GR : Click
Here
[10] - Revenue and Forest Department
Regarding grant of rehabilitation benefits to deceased Project Affected Persons who died prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
To View GR : Click
Here
PART 2
LATEST CHANGES IN MAHARASHTRA LAWS
The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold lands into Occupancy Class-I lands) Rules, 2025
Notification No. Jamin 2025/C.R.29/J1, Dt. 04-03-2025
Amended by Corrigendum No. Jamin-2025/C.R.29/J-1, Dt. 06-03-2025
Whereas, by the Government Notification, Revenue and Forest Department, No. Jamin 2025/C.R.29/J1, dated the 20th February, 2025, The Government of Maharashtra had published the draft of rules for Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold lands into Occupancy Class-I lands, which were proposed to be made, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 29A and 328 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah. XLI of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as “the said code”) and of all other powers enabling it in that behalf and in supersession of all earlier rules made in this behalf, for information of all the persons likely to be affected thereby, and notice was thereby given that the said draft would be taken into consideration by the Government of Maharashtra on or after 2nd March, 2025;
And Whereas, various objections and suggestions received pursuant to the said notification have been considered by the Government;
And Whereas, after considering the objections and suggestions received, the Government considered it expedient to modify certain provisions of draft rules.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 29A and 328 of the said Code, and of all other powers enabling it in that behalf, the Government of Maharashtra, hereby makes the following rules, the same having been previously published as required by sub-section (1) of section 329 of the said Code, namely :-
RULES
1. Short title and application:- (1) These rules may be called the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold lands into Occupancy Class-I lands) Rules, 2025.
(2) These rules shall apply to the lands granted or subsequently allowed by the competent authority to be used for agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial purpose on Occupancy Class-II or leasehold rights except such lands held by the public authorities for public purposes.
2. Definitions:- (1) In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(i) “Annual Statement of Rates” means the Annual Statement of Rates published under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995 framed under the Maharashtra Stamp Act (LX of 1958) and where such Annual Statement of Rates is not prepared or available, it means the rate of such land as determined by the Assistant Director of the Town Planning Department of the concerned District;
(ii) “Code” means the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah. XLI of 1966);
(iii) “Development plan” means the Development plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Mah. XXXVII of 1966);
(iv) “Regional plan” means the Regional plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Mah. XXXVII of 1966);
(v) “section” means the section of the Code.
(2) Words and expressions used but not defined hereinabove shall have the same meanings as are assigned to them respectively in the Code.
3. (1) Any holder of land granted on Occupancy Class-II or leasehold land basis after lapse of the period of five years from the date of commencement of actual use of land for which the land was granted originally, may make an application to the concerned District Collector for conversion of Occupancy Class-II land or leasehold land into Occupancy Class-I land as per the provisions of these Rules.
(2) Upon receipt of any application under sub-rule (1), the Collector shall verify the particulars of the concerned land and whether there is any violation or breach of any of the terms or conditions of grant of such land.
(3) Upon such verification, if it is noticed that there is violation of any of the terms or conditions of grant of such land which has not been regularised, then the Collector may reject the application, by an Order, after recording the reasons therefor.
(4) Upon such verification, if it is noticed that there is no violation of any of the terms or conditions of grant of such land, or such violation, if any, have been regularized by the authority competent to do so, then the Collector shall by an order, convert the Occupancy Class-II lands or leasehold lands into Occupancy Class-I lands on payment of conversion premium and subject to the conditions as specified in the Table below:-
TABLE
(A) Conversion premium payable for conversion of Occupancy Class-II or leasehold lands granted for agricultural purpose only:-
|
Sr. No. |
Area in which land is situated and user of land. |
Premium to be charged for the applications received up to 31st December, 2025. |
Premium to be charged for the applications received after 31st December, 2025. |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
1. |
Land held for agricultural purpose situated outside the limits of any Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation or Special Planning Authority, - |
|
|
|
|
(i) allocated to agricultural or no development zone as per the regional plan; |
Twenty-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per agricultural rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per agricultural rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
|
(ii) allocated to any non-agricultural zone as per the regional plan. |
Fifty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per potential non- agricultural rate of such land specified in current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per potential non-agricultural rate of such land specified in current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
2. |
Land held for agricultural purpose situated within the limits of any Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation or Special Planning Authority and allocated to,– |
|
|
|
|
(i) where non- agricultural use of such land is not permissible as per the Development plan. |
Twenty-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
|
(ii) where non- agricultural use of such land is permissible as per the Development plan. |
Fifty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per potential non-agricultural rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per potential non-agricultural rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
|
|
|
|
(B) Conversion premium payable for conversion of Occupancy Class-II or leasehold lands held or subsequently allowed by the Competent Authority to be used for residential or commercial or industrial purposes only:-
|
Sr. No. |
Type of occupancy of land. |
Premium to be charged for the applications received up to 31st December, 2025. |
Premium to be charged for the applications received after 31st December, 2025. |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
1. |
Land held on Occupancy Class-II or on lease hold basis for commercial or industrial purpose. |
Fifty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Sixty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
2. |
Land held personally on Occupancy Class-II for residential purpose. |
Fifteen per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Sixty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
3. |
Land held personally on lease hold rights for residential purpose. |
Twenty-Five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
4. |
Land held on Occupant Class II or leasehold basis by Co-operative Housing Society provided that the Co-operative Housing Society is opting for self-redevelopment and also ready to give 25 per cent. of available additional FSI to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). |
Five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Seventy-five per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
|
5. |
Land held by Co-operative Housing Society on Occupant Class-II or leasehold basis (other than societies mentioned at Sr. No. 4 above) |
Ten per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Sixty per cent. of value of such land calculated as per rate of such land specified in the current Annual Statement of Rates. |
Conditions:- (1) In case of self-redevelopment of land provided on lease / occupancy rights to Co-operative Housing Societies, if additional FSI area is available excluding the original FSI area of the building, 25 per cent. of available additional FSI area, shall be made available by the housing society for the beneficiaries under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana at the government rates. If additional FSI is not available then the society shall not be eligible to get the benefit of 5 per cent. premium:
Provided that, if the Co-operative Housing Society fails to comply with the condition of making available additional FSI area for beneficiary under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the premium amount paid by the society shall be forfeited and the land shall be restored back to class-II tenure.
(2) The Co-operative Housing Society opting for self-redevelopment will have to initiate the process of self-redevelopment within a period of two years from the date of order of converting to Class-I. In case the Co-operative Housing Society fails to initiate self-redevelopment process as stated above, the State Government may grant a further extension of two years. In case Co-operative Housing Society fails to initiate redevelopment process or in case there is breach of any other conditions stated herein, the premium amount paid by the society shall be forfeited and the subject land of Co-operative Housing Society shall be restored to Class-II tenure.
(3) The Collector shall not pass any order to convert the Occupancy Class-II land or leasehold land into Occupancy Class-I land in cases, where the premium for such conversion exceeds rupees One Crore, unless prior approval of the State Government is obtained. The Collector shall scrutinize the application where the premium of such conversion exceeds rupees One Crore within three months and forward the same to prior approval of the State Government.
(4) The Occupancy Class-II land or leasehold land shall not be converted into Occupancy Class-I land if the period of five years has not lapsed from the date of commencement of actual use of land for which land was granted.
(5) Before the final order of conversion of Class-II lands or leasehold lands into occupancy Class-I, the applicant shall pay the amount of premium as mentioned in the notice for payment within three months from the date of such notice.
------------------
PART 3
SUBJECT INDEX
[1] - BONUS DEDUCTION CLAIM - [Bombay High Court]
[2] - EXCISE LICENSE OWNERSHIP - [Bombay High Court]
[3] - SCHEDULED CASTE CLAIM - [Bombay High Court]
[4] - TENANT RIGHTS - [Bombay High Court]
[5] - CASTE CERTIFICATE - [Bombay High Court]
[6] - ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION - [Bombay High Court]
[7] - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - [Bombay High Court]
[8] - JUDICIAL TRANSFERS - [Bombay High Court]
[9] - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - [Bombay High Court]
[10] - DEVELOPER TERMINATION - [Bombay High Court]
[11] - REDEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - [Bombay High Court]
[12] - ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION - [Bombay High Court]
[13] - BID REJECTION ELIGIBILITY - [Bombay High Court]
[14] - USE OF RESERVED LANDS - [Bombay High Court]
[15] - CENTRAL STORE LEASE - [Bombay High Court]
[16] - TENDER ELIGIBILITY - [Bombay High Court]
[17] - CONSENT TERMS ENFORCEMENT - [Bombay High Court]
[18] - ARBITRAL AWARD CHALLENGE - [Bombay High Court]
[19] - SUICIDE NOTE IMPLICATION - [Bombay High Court]
[20] - ARBITRATION CLAUSE SCOPE - [Bombay High Court]
[21] - PENALTY ON DELAY - [Bombay High Court]
[22] - FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TERMINATION - [Bombay High Court]
[23] - MENTAL DISABILITY QUOTA - [Bombay High Court]
[24] - REVENUE SHARING PRICE - [Bombay High Court]
[25] - ILLEGAL VOTING ALLEGATION - [Bombay High Court]
PART 3
SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT
[1] - BONUS DEDUCTION CLAIM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Alok Aradhe ; Sandeep V Marne, J.)
Income Tax Appeal No 512 of 2003, dated 20-06-2025
Carona Limited vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax; Commissioner of Income Tax V; Union of India Law
Ministry
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 271C, Sec. 271, Sec. 260A, Sec. 143, Sec. 43B - Bonus Deduction Claim - Appeal filed under Sec. 260A against order of Tribunal restoring penalty under Sec. 271C - Assessee engaged in footwear manufacturing filed revised 'Amnesty Return' declaring positive income - Deduction claimed for unpaid bonus on grounds of liability crystallisation - Assessing Officer disallowed bonus citing Sec. 43B and imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted penalty holding explanation plausible - Tribunal reversed CIT(A) and upheld penalty - High Court held penalty unjustified as no false statement made in return and claim was based on bona fide interpretation of law - Held that inaccurate particulars not furnished and Tribunal erred in restoring penalty - Appeal allowed and CIT(A) order confirmed - Appeal Allowed
Law Point : Penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) not sustainable where claim is bona
fide and no inaccurate particulars or false statements are furnished in income
tax return
Acts Referred:
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 271C, Sec. 271, Sec. 260A, Sec. 143, Sec. 43B
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[2] - EXCISE LICENSE OWNERSHIP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
[Aurangabad Bench]
(Hon'ble Kishore C Sant, J.)
Writ Petition; Civil Application No 14861 of 2019; 437 of 2025, 8987 of 2021, dated 20-06-2025
Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wabale vs.
State of Maharashtra; Minister of State; Commissioner of State Excise;
Collector (Excise Department); Vitthal Janardan Phadke
Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 Rule 40 - Excise License Ownership - Petition challenged order of Minister granting excise license in favour of Respondent despite prior judicial findings - Petitioner held original grantee of license which continued in individual name despite partnership formed for business operation - Partnership dissolved through arbitration and judicial orders confirmed petitioner's exclusive entitlement - Respondent allowed to continue business only temporarily to protect revenue - Collector and Commissioner reiterated that license could not be transferred to Respondent under Rule 40 - Minister's order ignoring previous judgments and facts set aside - Held that license never stood in name of partnership or Respondent and continuation beyond partnership tenure unjustified - Petition allowed and Minister's order quashed - Petition fully allowed
Law Point : Liquor license granted in individual name cannot be transferred
to partner post-dissolution of partnership when license was never in firm's
name and judicial findings support original grantee's right.
Acts Referred:
Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 Rule 40
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[3] - SCHEDULED CASTE CLAIM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Revati Mohite Dere ; Dr Neela Gokhale, J.)
Writ Petition No 13016 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs. State
of Maharashtra; District Caste Certificate
Scheduled Caste Claim - Petitioner challenged Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting claim for Scheduled Caste status under 'Chambhar' caste from mother's side after parents' divorce - Petitioner originally recorded as 'Hindu Agri' in school records reflecting father's caste - Post-divorce, mother changed name and caste record to 'Chambhar' and obtained caste certificate - Vigilance Reports showed no evidence of social disadvantage or deprivation faced due to caste - Petitioner received good education and had no documented instances of humiliation or hardship due to caste identity - Held that to claim Scheduled Caste status from mother's side despite father being upper caste, petitioner must demonstrate social disadvantages associated with Scheduled Caste status - No such evidence found - Petition dismissed
Law Point : Person born to inter-caste parents claiming Scheduled Caste
status from mother's side must prove social disadvantages, humiliation or
deprivation due to caste identity to obtain validity.
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[4] - TENANT RIGHTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 4540 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Ajit K Dharia vs. Mumbai
Municipal Corporation; Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation; Assistant Engineer;
Smile Shelters; Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre; Akshay Prabhakar Mhatre; Shalaka Kishore
Paitil Nee
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 499 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 17 - Tenant Rights - Petition under Article 226 filed by tenant seeking writ of mandamus to set aside Occupancy Certificate granted to developer and for direction to handover reserved flat and execute Agreement on same terms as other tenants - Tenant occupied one room in redeveloped building - Rights of tenants under redevelopment governed by provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Allegation that petition used as means to pressurize landlord or developer and not maintainable under writ jurisdiction - Direction given that tenant has remedy before Civil Court for execution of Agreement - Petition held to be abusive of legal process and a form of sophisticated extortion - Exemplary costs payable to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Remedy for tenant to claim rights under redevelopment agreement
lies in Civil Court and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if claim
involves disputed facts or requires trial
Acts Referred:
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,
1888 Sec. 499
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 17
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[5] - CASTE CERTIFICATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Ashish Balaji Sawant vs. Jalindar
Tukaram Khaire; Sub-divisional Officer, Mangaon; District Collector Office;
District Caste Scrutiny Committee; State of Maharashtra Writ Cell
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Caste Certificate - Petition filed under Article 226 challenging Order of District Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste certificate of Petitioner on ground of fraud - Petitioner earlier contested election and opponent filed complaint - Petitioner alleged that Committee passed Order without hearing and ignored documents showing Kunbi caste - Respondents contended Petitioner relied on forged documents including fabricated school certificate and misrepresented facts - Records showed Petitioner's father involved in Maratha community trust and official documents reflected Maratha caste - Hearing opportunities were granted but Petitioner failed to appear - Conduct of Petitioner found dishonest and attempt to commit fraud on constitutional affirmative action framework - Exemplary costs directed to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Caste certificate obtained through misrepresentation and forged
documents is liable to be invalidated and such petitioner is not entitled to
any equitable relief under writ jurisdiction
Acts Referred:
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[6] - ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 16958 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Avinash Dominic Ghosal vs. State
of Maharashtra; Commissioner Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation; Apolina Bastyav
Miranda; Roston Bastyav Miranda; Rumilda Sanket Gonsalves; Johna Ignatius
Dsouza; Honey Ignatius Dsouza; Laila Joh
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 53, Sec. 52, Sec. 57 - Illegal Construction - Petition under Article 226 filed seeking demolition of unauthorized construction by private respondents on writ property and action against inaction of municipal authority - Despite notices acknowledging illegality of construction and rejecting regularization, authority failed to proceed against violators - Petitioner had obtained interim relief which was later vacated - High Court held unauthorized constructions without prior permission are incurable illegality and cannot be regularized post facto - Held that local authorities' failure to act against violators contributes to systemic illegality and impunity - Court directed demolition of unauthorized structure and prosecution of violators and officers responsible - Directed Municipal Commissioner to submit compliance report - Petition Allowed
Law Point : Unauthorized construction without any prior permission is
illegal and not curable through post facto regularization even on private land
and authorities must act decisively against such violations and prosecute
responsible officers
Acts Referred:
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 53, Sec. 52, Sec. 57
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[7] - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition; Show Cause Notice; Interim Application No. 3602 of 2022; 3 of 2025; 234 of 2023, dated 20-06-2025
Hiroo Tuljaram Shahani; A S
Gadkari vs. Jyoti Hiroo Shahani; State of Maharashtra; Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 53 - Contempt Proceedings - Petitioners challenged notice under MRTP Act and order identifying unauthorized construction in ground floor premises - Initially denied illegality but later gave undertaking to remove unauthorized works - Failed to comply with undertaking despite several opportunities and BMC reports confirming feasibility of restoration - Petitioners' conduct found willful and obstructive reflecting contempt of court and attempt to undermine judicial authority - Architect's report cited by Petitioners held baseless and lacking factual foundation - Court held Petitioners guilty of contempt and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment and fine - Directed BMC to restore premises and recover costs from Petitioners - Petition Disposed
Law Point : Wilful disobedience of undertaking given to court and deliberate
attempt to frustrate court's directions amounts to contempt and warrants penal
consequences including imprisonment and restoration of illegal construction at
violator's cost
Acts Referred:
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 53
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[8] - JUDICIAL TRANSFERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 7830 of 2024, 7831 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Kiran Ramesh Shinde; Devdas Kerba
Chougale vs. State of Maharashtra; President Industrial Court; Registrar Industrial
Court, Maharashtra
Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay In Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 Sec. 4, Sec. 2 - Judicial Transfers - Petitioners challenged transfer Orders from Labour and Industrial Court Kolhapur to other districts alleging non-completion of tenure and violation of Transfer Act and GRs - Contended transfers were punitive and not based on administrative grounds - Respondents asserted transfers were routine annual transfers under GR and complaints were not basis of decision - Court held judicial employees governed by separate rules and not under Transfer Act - Held that Petitioners had completed long tenures in same location and complaints against them were serious including misconduct with Advocates - Transfer held justified as administrative action and not punitive - Court found petitioners conduct inappropriate and their approach arrogant and misleading - Observed their continued service in judicial establishment undeserving - Petitions Dismissed
Law Point : Judicial employees are not governed by general government
transfer rules and may be transferred for administrative reasons even before
completing tenure especially when complaints of misconduct exist and transfers
serve institutional discipline
Acts Referred:
Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay In Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 Sec. 4, Sec. 2
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[9] - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Meenanath S/o Shivram Patil;
Vijay S/o Mahadev Jadhav vs. Vivek S/o Balaram Deshmukh; M/s Vinayak
Developers; Gram Panachayat Chanaje; Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad
Raigad (Alibaug); Tahsildar Taluka Uran Dist Raigad; Collector, District
Raigad; Cit
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 34, Sec. 38 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 153, Sec. 54, Sec. 53 - Unauthorized Construction - Petition under Article 226 filed seeking demolition of unauthorized construction by private respondents on land governed by CIDCO and action against defaulting officials - Despite multiple complaints and issuance of notices from 2014 onwards no demolition was undertaken by CIDCO - Respondents filed civil suit to restrain action during pendency of Writ Petition and suppressed material facts including previous notices and pending Writ - Court held suit to be abuse of process and found complicity of CIDCO officials in permitting illegal constructions - Directed demolition of structures and dismissed civil suit - Directed action against officials and developers under MRTP Act - Petition Allowed
Law Point : Illegal construction without required permissions and with
suppression of facts cannot be protected by judicial process and any such civil
suit is liable to be dismissed summarily while authorities must enforce
planning laws strictly
Acts Referred:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 34,
Sec. 38
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 153, Sec. 54, Sec. 53
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[10] - DEVELOPER TERMINATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari, J.)
Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed);
Okhawala Shelter, Builders & Developers vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation;
Executive Engineer (D P ); Slum Rehabilitation Authority; Additional Municipal
Commissioner Bmc Western Suburbs; Assistant Municipal Commissioner
Developer Termination - Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of order terminating developer and direction to approve building proposal submitted by petitioner - Order challenged found well-reasoned and without bias after due hearing of parties - Court enquired into maintainability of petition and found no legal right under Article 14 for slum society or developer - Issues raised found to be private in nature involving planning and design not within scope of writ jurisdiction - Selection of developer held prerogative of Municipal Corporation in consultation with Slum Rehabilitation Authority - Petition found to be attempt by developer to continue appointment through cover of slum dwellers - Petition treated as abuse of process to avoid civil remedy - No justification found to interfere with decision of authorities - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Disputes involving planning design and appointment of developer
in slum rehabilitation are matters of administrative discretion and not
amenable to writ jurisdiction unless violation of legal or constitutional
rights is shown
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[11] - REDEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 3508 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Star Deep Co - Operative Housing
Society Ltd vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; Deputy Chief Engineer B P (W S -ii) C
Wing; Executive Engineer, (Building & Proposal) W S R Ward, Munici
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Redevelopment Approval - Petitioner society sought writ of certiorari against ongoing redevelopment by another society claiming unauthorized usage of FSI and lack of consent - Petitioner based claim on agreement and lease documents asserting entitlement to share in redevelopment - BMC clarified redevelopment approved in accordance with DCPR 2034 and no encroachment on petitioner's rights - Respondent society asserted ownership of land and compliance with planning norms - Court noted that disputes on property rights, lease interpretation and redevelopment permissions involve factual inquiry - Held that such private property issues between lessor and lessee require adjudication by civil court - Dismissed writ petition as not maintainable under Article 226 - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for
private property disputes involving interpretation of lease or ownership rights
which require adjudication through civil court proceedings.
Acts Referred:
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[12] - ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 5337 of 2024, dated 20-06-2025
Surendra Shah vs. Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation; Executive Engineer; Assistant Engineer; Arvind
Badriprasad Yadav; Madhumati Arvind Yadav; Rameshchandra Arvind Yadv; Kamlesh
Arvind Yadav; Awdhesh Arvind Yadav
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11 - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 354A, Sec. 351, Sec. 515A - Illegal Construction Demolition - Petitioner being owner of land filed writ petition seeking demolition of illegal structures constructed without approval - BMC issued speaking order declaring structures illegal and directed removal - Respondent initiated civil suit challenging notices but no interim relief granted - Court referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strict approach against unauthorized constructions and non-encouragement of violations - Observed that no sanctioned plan existed for impugned structures - Held that illegalities are incurable and not entitled to judicial protection - Directed BMC to proceed with demolition - Petition Allowed
Law Point : Unauthorized constructions lacking sanctioned approvals cannot
be protected under law and must be removed irrespective of civil claims or
suits filed without interim protection.
Acts Referred:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or.
7R. 11
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 354A, Sec. 351, Sec. 515A
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[13] - BID REJECTION ELIGIBILITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Alok Aradhe ; Sandeep V Marne, J.)
Writ Petition No 6703 of 2025, dated 19-06-2025
National Security Services vs.
State of Maharashtra; Commissioner/administrator; B V G India Limited; Krystal
Integrated Services Ltd; Smart Services Pvt Ltd; Sainik Intelligence and
Security Pvt Ltd
Constitution of India Art. 226 - Bid Rejection Eligibility - Petition filed under Art. 226 challenged rejection of bid by Municipal Corporation in tender process for supply of helpers to security guards - Petitioner disqualified on ground of not meeting eligibility under Clause 3(m)(c) of tender - Earlier petition led to remand to consider additional documents - Corporation insisted on singular work experience for 955 helpers and refused to aggregate multiple contracts - Petitioner produced 12 work orders from same financial year showing provision of 1413 helpers - Court held tender permitted consolidation for same financial year - Found rejection based on erroneous interpretation and directed Corporation to consider financial bid of Petitioner - Order rejecting bid set aside - Petition Allowed
Law Point : Consolidated work orders in same financial year for provision of
required manpower satisfy eligibility under Clause 3(m)(c) of tender document
where tender permits aggregation across contracts
Acts Referred:
Constitution of India Art. 226
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[14] - USE OF RESERVED LANDS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Amit Borkar ; Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.)
Writ Petition; Interim Application; Interim Application (L) No 1152 of 2002; 1771 of 2022; 28459 of 2021, 30716 of 2021, dated 19-06-2025
Ngo Alliance For Governance and
Renewal (Nagar); Neera Punj of Mumbai; Nayana Kathpalia of Mumbai; Naredco West
Foundation; Pandurang D Chalke & Anr; Slum Redevelopers Association &
Ors vs. State of Maharashtra; Slum Rehabilitation Authority; Greater Mumbai
Municipal Corporation; Public Concern For Conveyance Trust; Ngo Alliance For
Governance and Renewal (Nagar) & Ors; Development Depar
Constitution of India Art. 48A, Art. 19, Art. 21, Art. 14 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 2, Sec. 22, Sec. 152, Sec. 39, Sec. 41, Sec. 34, Sec. 28, Sec. 21, Sec. 32, Sec. 23, Sec. 29, Sec. 40, Sec. 30, Sec. 37, Sec. 26, Sec. 35, Sec. 27, Sec. 38, Sec. 42, Sec. 33, Sec. 36, Sec. 31, Sec. 25, Sec. 24 - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 Sec. 3B, Sec. 3Z, Sec. 3X, Sec. 37 - Use of Reserved Lands - Petition filed challenging Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 which permits slum rehabilitation on lands reserved for public open spaces like parks and gardens - Petitioners contend Regulation infringes Articles 14 and 21 and violates principles of sustainable development and public trust doctrine - Regulation allows use of up to 65% of such lands for construction subject to retention of 35% as open space - Petitioners argue dilution of reservation under 1992 Notification which required at least 33% open space and encroachment of minimum 25% - Respondents justify change under new development control regulations - Court examined urban planning principles, constitutional mandates and environmental reports indicating per capita open space in city as extremely low - Held that impugned Regulation is continuation of earlier framework with cosmetic change and undermines ecological and legal obligations - Court found no valid planning or environmental basis justifying policy - Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) held unconstitutional and liable to be struck down - Petitions finally allowed
Law Point : Regulation permitting construction on reserved public open
spaces without adequate environmental safeguards and planning justification
violates Articles 14 and 21 and fails test of sustainable development and
public trust doctrine.
Acts Referred:
Constitution of India Art. 48A, Art. 19, Art. 21, Art. 14
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 2, Sec. 22, Sec. 152,
Sec. 39, Sec. 41, Sec. 34, Sec. 28, Sec. 21, Sec. 32, Sec. 23, Sec. 29, Sec.
40, Sec. 30, Sec. 37, Sec. 26, Sec. 35, Sec. 27, Sec. 38, Sec. 42, Sec. 33,
Sec. 36, Sec. 31, Sec. 25, Sec. 24
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
Sec. 3B, Sec. 3Z, Sec. 3X, Sec. 37
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[15] - CENTRAL STORE LEASE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Alok Aradhe ; Sandeep V Marne, J.)
Writ Petition (L) No 36983 of 2024, dated 19-06-2025
Vast Media Network Pvt Ltd vs.
State of Maharashtra; Chief Executive Officer; Commissioner, Maharashtra Dairy
Development; Nitin Laxmidas Dama
Central Store Lease - Petition filed challenging lease allotment of Central Store Office to another bidder despite identical financial bid - Tender involved lease of sixteen warehouses and Central Store Office for thirty years - Petitioner bid only for Central Store Office while Respondent bid for multiple warehouses and Central Store Office - Preference clause applied by authority favored bidder with more warehouse bids - Petitioner argued clause referred only to warehouses and not Central Store Office - Court held tender document made clear distinction between warehouses and Central Store Office and use of term 'warehouses' in preference clause restricted its application - Allotment to Respondent found arbitrary and irrational - Directed renegotiation between Petitioner and Respondent to determine higher offer for public interest - Lease process restored only for Central Store Office - Petition partly allowed
Law Point : Preference clause in tender must be applied strictly as per
terms and cannot be extended to premises not covered by clause; public interest
mandates fair evaluation where rates are equal.
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[16] - TENDER ELIGIBILITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Alok Aradhe ; Sandeep V Marne, J.)
Writ Petition No. 4761 of 2024, dated 19-06-2025
Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs. State of
Maharashtra; Commissioner, Dairy Development Department; Dy Commissioner, Dairy
Development Department; Dy Secretary (Diary), Government of Maharashtra; Chief
Executive Officer, Aarey Milk Co
Tender Eligibility - Petitioner sought declaration of ineligibility of one bidder in tender process for leasing warehouses and mandamus for consideration of his own bid - Tender notice prescribed financial eligibility criteria including annual turnover and net worth per warehouse - Petitioner challenged eligibility of successful bidder citing newly formed partnership firm and lack of requisite financial documents - Objections included absence of income tax, GST, and professional tax documents - Tendering authority relied on financial documents of partners and director of partner company to assess eligibility - Legal position clarified that experience and financial credentials of partners can be attributed to firm - Authority exercised discretion judiciously and found bidder eligible - Court held no arbitrariness or irrationality in process and declined to interfere with commercial decision of tendering body - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : In tender matters, financial and experiential credentials of
partners can be considered for evaluating eligibility of a partnership firm and
judicial review does not extend to substituting authority's commercial discretion
absent arbitrariness or mala fides.
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[17] - CONSENT TERMS ENFORCEMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble G S Kulkarni ; Advait M Sethna, J.)
Interim Application (L); Commercial Appeal (L); Contempt Petition (L); Interim Application No. 26702 of 2024, 27806 of 2023; 27216 of 2023; 2148 of 2025; 27806 of 2023, dated 19-06-2025
Royal Realtors Landmarks Pvt Ltd;
Premji Harakchand Shah; Deven Premji Shah; Himmatlal Ganeshlal Kachhara vs.
Shah Housecon Pvt Ltd; Ramji Harakchand Shah; Mansukh Harakchand Shah; Akash
Harakchand Shah; Hiren Premji Savla; Pankaj Nandi Gada; Gaurav Padamshi
Khirani; Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 23R. 3 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52 - Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 29, Sec. 17, Sec. 18 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 18 - Development Control Regulations For Greater Bombay, 1991 Reg 33 - Companies Act, 2013 Sec. 168 - Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 Rule 15 - Consent Terms Enforcement - Applicants filed interim application seeking decree based on consent terms executed with certain respondents under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC - JDA executed between parties in view of financial distress of respondent company - Suit filed by applicants for specific performance due to non-compliance of JDA - Parties negotiated and executed consent terms which were verified before Prothonotary - Respondents later alleged fraud and sought to withdraw consent citing resignation of directors and unenforceability - Court observed consent terms were voluntarily executed with proper board resolutions and verified through due process - Objections on grounds of vagueness, public policy and indoor management were not substantiated - Held that consent terms were binding and valid - Ordered decree in terms of consent terms - Interim Application Allowed
Law Point : Consent terms duly executed and verified under due legal
procedure cannot be invalidated merely by belated allegations of fraud or
internal disputes when board resolutions authorizing same remain in force and
unchallenged in law.
Acts Referred:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or.
23R. 3
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 29, Sec. 17, Sec. 18
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 18
Development Control Regulations For Greater Bombay, 1991 Reg 33
Companies Act, 2013 Sec. 168
Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 Rule 15
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[18] - ARBITRAL AWARD CHALLENGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.)
Commercial Arbitration Petition No 984 of 2018, dated 18-06-2025
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited vs. G R Engineering Private Limited
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 74, Sec. 73 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34, Sec. 16 - Finance Act, 1994 Sec. 66, Sec. 65 - Arbitral Award Challenge - Appellant challenged arbitral award passed in favour of respondent on grounds of perversity regarding findings on civil works, liquidated damages, insurance, service tax, and customs duty - Tribunal rejected non-arbitrability claims and held that no external agency recommended withholding for civil works and both expert reports confirmed compliance with M30 concrete standards - Tribunal found deductions unjustified and noted usage of completed structure for years without repair - On liquidated damages, Tribunal held claim unjustified without concrete proof of loss but High Court found reasoning insufficient and arbitrary - Award partially set aside regarding liquidated damages while upholding findings on insurance, tax, and customs duty - Court held those issues were arbitrable and findings plausible and well-reasoned - Award Partially Set Aside
Law Point : Arbitral award can be partially set aside when part of it lacks
reasoning or is arbitrary, while upholding other components if they are
severable and supported by coherent findings and valid interpretation of
contract
Acts Referred:
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 74, Sec. 73
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34, Sec. 16
Finance Act, 1994 Sec. 66, Sec. 65
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[19] - SUICIDE NOTE IMPLICATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Revati Mohite Dere ; Dr Neela Gokhale, J.)
Criminal Writ Petition No 3388 of 2024, dated 18-06-2025
Nishit Patel vs. State of Maharashtra; Nazeem Navroz Tejani
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 107, Sec. 306, Sec. 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482 - Suicide Note Implication - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered for abetment of suicide based on suicide note and witness statement - Deceased committed suicide months after alleged financial pressure from petitioner who had extended loans - Suicide note mentioned petitioner as harsh in collecting interest but lacked proximity or direct instigation - High Court noted absence of mens rea or close connection between petitioner's conduct and suicide - Held no evidence of petitioner playing active role or instigating deceased to commit suicide - Cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing requirement of proximate incitement and direct causation for offence under Sec. 306 - Concluded that demand for repayment without abusive or threatening conduct does not constitute abetment - Charge-sheet and Quashed FIR - Petition Allowed
Law Point : To establish abetment of suicide under Sec. 306 IPC, there must
be clear and proximate incitement or instigation by accused; mere financial
demand without mens rea or coercive conduct is insufficient
Acts Referred:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34,
Sec. 107, Sec. 306, Sec. 506
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[20] - ARBITRATION CLAUSE SCOPE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.)
Arbitration Application No 35 of 2025, dated 18-06-2025
Samruddhi Industries Ltd vs.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 7, Sec. 1, Sec. 11 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 17 - Arbitration Clause Scope - Application filed for appointment of arbitrator under agreement which included arbitration clause conditional upon dispute being below pecuniary jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal - Dispute concerned imposition of penal interest by bank exceeding contracted terms - Court examined whether arbitration clause covered such dispute and noted DRT jurisdiction limited to bank recovery actions - Found arbitration clause applied only to recovery matters below Rs. 20 lakh initiated by bank - Held applicant's claims outside scope of arbitration clause as they did not fall within DRT's substantive jurisdiction - Concluded arbitration agreement not applicable to borrower's challenge to bank's penal interest practices - Application for arbitrator appointment was rejected - Arbitration Application Dismissed
Law Point : Arbitration clause limited to disputes within DRT jurisdiction
for bank recovery actions cannot be extended to borrower-initiated claims
outside that domain, even if agreement mentions arbitration conditionally
Acts Referred:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 Sec. 7, Sec. 1, Sec. 11
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 17
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[21] - PENALTY ON DELAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble Jitendra Jain, J.)
Writ Petition No 2358 of 2018, dated 18-06-2025
Il & Fs Financial Services
Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra; Collector of Stamps; Collector of Stamps
(Enforcement-2); Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 392, Sec. 393, Sec. 391, Sec. 100, Sec. 78, Sec. 394 - Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 31, Sec. 53 - Penalty On Delay - Petition under Article 226 challenged penalty demand notices under Bombay Stamp Act for delay in payment of adjudicated stamp duty - Petitioner admitted stamp duty liability but disputed penalty on ground that payment was made within time from interim order date - Petitioner failed to respond to requisition and accepted duty liability in letters and appeal while seeking deferment of penalty - Court held that once demand notice is served and payment is not made within 60 days, penalty under Sec. 31(4) applies from date of instrument - Interim order does not defer starting point of penalty - Conduct of Petitioner showed misuse of legal process - Held penalty justified and payable - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Under Sec. 31(4) of Bombay Stamp Act, penalty is mandatory for
default in payment of stamp duty within 60 days of demand notice and accrues
from date of instrument regardless of adjudication delay or interim relief
conditions
Acts Referred:
Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 392, Sec.
393, Sec. 391, Sec. 100, Sec. 78, Sec. 394
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 31, Sec. 53
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[22] - FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TERMINATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble R I Chagla, J.)
Arbitration Petition No 1752 of 2015, 1753 of 2015, dated 17-06-2025
Board of Control For Cricket In
India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited; M/s Rendezvour Sports World; M/s
Anchor Earth Pvt Ltd ; M/s Parinee Developers and Properties Pvt Ltd; M/s Anand
Shyam Estate Development Pvt Ltd; M/s Rendezvour Sports
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 237, Sec. 55 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34, Sec. 19, Sec. 16, Sec. 9, Sec. 33 - Partnership Act, 1932 Sec. 19 - Franchise Agreement Termination - Franchise agreements executed between BCCI and KCPL as well as RSW were terminated due to failure to furnish requisite bank guarantees - Disputes were consolidated before arbitral tribunal by mutual consent - Arbitrator held termination as wrongful and awarded substantial damages to both KCPL and RSW - BCCI challenged awards under Section 34 of Arbitration Act contending awards were perverse, based on no evidence and contrary to contract terms - It was argued that KCPL was never ready to furnish bank guarantee and had accepted all terms at time of agreement - Also contended that invocation of arbitration by RSW was invalid due to lack of authorization from all consortium partners - Court found awards to be inconsistent with terms of agreements and held that damages awarded went beyond permissible scope - Findings of Arbitrator regarding stadium readiness, format of matches, tweets of Lalit Modi, waiver and extension of deadline for furnishing bank guarantee were found unsupported by evidence - Invocation of arbitration by RSW held defective due to lack of authority under Partnership Act - Awards set aside - Appeals Allowed
Law Point : Arbitral award based on findings contrary to contract terms and
unsupported by evidence amounts to patent illegality and is liable to be set
aside under Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Acts Referred:
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 237, Sec. 55
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 34, Sec. 19, Sec. 16, Sec. 9, Sec.
33
Partnership Act, 1932 Sec. 19
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[23] - MENTAL DISABILITY QUOTA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble M S Sonak ; Jitendra Jain, J.)
Writ Petition No 8123 of 2019, dated 16-06-2025
Vishwas Haridas Jadhavar vs.
Union of India; Secretary Department of Disabilities; Union Public Service
Commission
Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Sec. 32 Sec. 33 - Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 Sec. 34 Sec. 33 Sec. 2 - Mental Disability Quota - Petitioner challenged exclusion from disability reservation in 2006-2008 UPSC selections despite suffering from mental illness which qualified as disability under law - Claimed that if reservation existed for mental disability he would have been selected based on higher marks than last selected candidate in PWD quota - Delhi High Court rejected earlier petitions seeking benefit under 1995 Act observing legislative amendment needed - 2016 Act later included mental illness in disability reservation under Sec. 34 but authorities rejected petitioner's request for retrospective benefit and appointment under 2008 selection - Court held challenge to 2006-2008 process already adjudicated and barred by res judicata - Noted retrospective appointment would cause administrative complications and upset settled selections - Reliefs denied as selection concluded under valid existing law and petitioner exhausted remedies earlier - Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Legislative changes introducing new reservation categories
cannot be applied retrospectively to concluded selection processes especially
where judicial adjudication has already upheld previous regime's validity
Acts Referred:
Persons With Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Sec. 32,
Sec. 33
Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 Sec. 34, Sec. 33, Sec. 2
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[24] - REVENUE SHARING PRICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(Hon'ble M S Sonak ; Jitendra Jain, J.)
Writ Petition No 849 of 2018, dated 13-06-2025
Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra; Secretary Law and Judiciary Department,
Government of Maharashtra; Commissionerate of Sugar Sakhar Sankul, Shivajinagar
Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013 Sec. 4 Sec. 3 Sec. 12 - Revenue Sharing Price - Petition filed challenging order denying deduction of EMI payments from Revenue Sharing Price calculation for year 2016-2017 - Petitioner relied on later circular issued for year 2021-2022 allowing such deduction and sought parity - Court observed RSP format did not earlier permit EMI deduction but subsequent practice and policy shift support Petitioner's claim - Held issue required reconsideration by Board constituted under 2013 Act as Board comprises relevant stakeholders - Earlier rejection set aside and matter remanded to Board for fresh decision within six months - Court clarified no view on merits expressed - Petition Allowed
Law Point : When pricing determination is policy-linked and involves
stakeholder representation, any evolved practice in subsequent years justifies
remand for reconsideration of earlier period to ensure parity and fairness.
Acts Referred:
Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013 Sec. 4, Sec. 3, Sec. 12
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
[25] - ILLEGAL VOTING ALLEGATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
[Aurangabad Bench]
(Hon'ble Arun R Pedneker, J.)
Application In Election Petition; Election Petition; Application In Ep No 35 of 2024; 20 of 2024, 31 of 2024, 2 of 2024, dated 13-06-2025
Shobha Dinesh Bacchav; Dr Shri
Subhash Ramrao Bhamre; Dr Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamr; Election Commission of
India and Another vs. Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre; Election Commission of India;
Returning Officer, Dhule Parliamentary Constituency 02; Bharat Baburao Jadhav;
Zahor Ahamad Mohamad Yusuf (Jam Jam); Shafeeque Ahemad Md Rafeequ
Constitution of India Art. 225 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7 R. 11 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 409, Sec. 406 - Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sec. 100, Sec. 87, Sec. 80A, Sec. 82, Sec. 81, Sec. 101, Sec. 86, Sec. 80, Sec. 83 - States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Sec. 51 - Illegal Voting Allegation - Election Petition was filed alleging illegal casting of votes in favour of elected candidate at Malegaon Central Constituency - Petitioner contended names of dead persons were present in voter list and multiple votes were cast by same individuals - Petitioner failed to provide prima facie evidence showing votes were actually cast in names of dead persons or multiple times by same voters - No affidavits from polling agents or CCTV evidence submitted to support claims - Election authority denied irregularities and maintained votes counted as per law - Court held absence of material facts and specific evidence rendered petition speculative and unsubstantiated - It concluded that petition lacked triable issue and failed to meet requirements under Representation of the People Act - Petition deserved rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Election Petition Dismissed
Law Point : Election Petition must contain specific and material facts
supported by concrete evidence to show irregularities that materially affect
election outcome-Mere assertions without supporting evidence cannot form basis
for judicial inquiry.
Acts Referred:
Constitution of India Art. 225
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 409, Sec. 406
Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sec. 100, Sec. 87, Sec. 80A, Sec. 82,
Sec. 81, Sec. 101, Sec. 86, Sec. 80, Sec. 83
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Sec. 51
To View or Print Full Judgement: Click
Here
IMPORTANT
Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.
Published by:
Amit Nanda
for Current Law Solutions
Gr. Floor, Karanjia Building, 651 JS S Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002
Tel:- 09869443478
E-Mail: jainabook@gmail.com. Website: www.currentpublications.com
------------------