Important Judgments of Bombay High Court (2024)
Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Bombay High Court (2024), which played a significant role.
Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Bombay High Court (2024), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2024 pertaining to the Bombay High Court in the most efficient and easy way.
Important Judgments of Bombay High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update
1) Quashing of Detention Order Due to Procedural Lapses Under MPDA Act
In the case of Mohan S/O Nurchand Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2024), the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, quashed the detention order dated 13th October 2023 against the petitioner under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The court identified procedural lapses, including failing to forward the petitioner’s representation to the Advisory Board within the statutory period as required under Section 10 of the MPDA Act, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Additionally, the court observed an unexplained delay in the detention process, which disrupted the "live link" between the alleged activities and the detention order. Although the court acknowledged the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction based on offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and in-camera statements, it held that the procedural flaws rendered the detention order invalid. As a result, the petitioner was ordered to be released immediately.
2) Faceless Mechanism and Jurisdictional Validity under Income Tax Law
In the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. Income-tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. (2024), the Bombay High Court set aside notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, about the assessment year 2017-18, citing non-compliance with the faceless mechanism mandated by Section 151A read with Section 144B and the scheme notified on March 29, 2022.
The court ruled that the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) lacked authority to bypass the faceless procedure and upheld the mandatory application of the scheme, even for international tax and central charges cases.
It reaffirmed decisions in Hexaware Technologies and CapitalG LP, emphasizing that any deviation from the faceless mechanism renders actions illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned notices and reassessment order.
3) Court Affirms Due Process in Coca-Cola Food Adulteration Case
In M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, rejected a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC filed by the applicant, a beverage manufacturer, seeking quashing of proceedings in RCC No. 654 of 2006. The case stemmed from a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act), alleging the sale of adulterated "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry" containing fibrous and particulate suspended matter.
The court noted that the prosecution was initiated after the product's "Best Before" date had expired, but found no violation of the accused's rights under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, as the accused failed to apply for reanalysis of the samples before their destruction with judicial permission.
Relying on established precedents, the court held that the prosecution followed due process and the delay in filing the complaint did not prejudice the applicant. Consequently, the application for quashment was dismissed, and the interim relief staying proceedings were also denied.
4) Advocate's Forgery of Bail Order and Misrepresentation Leads to Anticipatory Bail Rejection
In Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Bombay High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application by the accused, an advocate, for charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 466 of the IPC. The advocate allegedly forged a bail order for her client’s husband, misleading the informant into believing bail was granted and collecting ₹25,000 as additional fees.
Despite repeated assurances and submission of forged documents, the advocate failed to secure the husband’s release, leading the informant to uncover the fraud through court and e-portal checks. The court deemed the accused's actions as fraudulent and detrimental to the legal system, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to identify potential accomplices and other similar instances. The application was dismissed, underscoring the breach of trust and harm caused to the informant and the justice system.
5) Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Section 153-A IPC
In Nitin S/O Vasantrao BodeBode v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Nitin Bode, accused of promoting enmity under Section 153-A(1)(b) of the IPC for circulating provocative content on WhatsApp. The Court noted that the essential element of "intention" to incite public disorder or violence, as required under Section 153-A, was absent, and there was no evidence of disturbance to public order or tranquillity.
The applicant was directed to cooperate with the investigation, produce his mobile phone, and adhere to conditions ensuring no tampering with evidence. The decision emphasized procedural safeguards under the CrPC and rejected custodial interrogation due to lack of necessity.
6) Bombay High Court Strikes Down Maharashtra Government’s RTE Exemption Notification
In Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2024), the Bombay High Court quashed the Maharashtra government’s notification dated February 9, which exempted private schools within a one-kilometre radius of government or aided schools from complying with the Right to Education (RTE) Act quota admissions.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, declared the notification "ultra vires" to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court stated, “The notification is held to be null and void.”
The judgment emphasized that the law mandates the government and private unaided schools to ensure education for children aged six to 14 years, particularly those from disadvantaged sections of society. The Court reiterated that the state’s obligation under Article 21-A to provide free and compulsory education is nearly absolute and extends to private unaided schools as prescribed by the RTE Act.
7. From Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment: A Judicial Review
In State of Maharashtra v. Pradip Vishwanath Jagtap (2024), the Bombay High Court dealt with a confirmation case involving the brutal murder of four family members, committed by the accused using a wooden log over suspected infidelity of his wife, Rupali. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, deeming it a "rarest of rare" case, and awarded the death penalty.
On appeal, the High Court reviewed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, noting the heinousness of the crime but also considering factors such as the accused's age, socio-economic background, and the possibility of reform. The court converted the death penalty into life imprisonment for a fixed term of 25 years without remission, emphasizing that the punishment must be proportional and aligned with judicial principles of sentencing.
8. Bombay HC Rules on Tenant Rights and Redevelopment of Old Buildings
In the case of Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2024), the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia challenging a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) report that categorized an 83-year-old building as dilapidated (C-1) and requiring demolition. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the building's structural condition are beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction and should be addressed in civil proceedings.
It emphasized that tenants’ rights are safeguarded by statutory provisions, even during redevelopment. The petition was deemed frivolous and obstructive to redevelopment efforts, leading the court to impose exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000 to deter similar litigation.
9) Tax Compliance Errors and the Role of Authorities: Judicial Observations
In Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2024), the Bombay High Court addressed the petitioner’s grievance regarding the non-disposal of his rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought rectification for the denial of a deduction under Section 80-IC, attributable to an inadvertent delay in uploading Form 10CCB due to an error by his Chartered Accountants. Despite repeated reminders and subsequent compliance, the authorities failed to act on the application for nearly six years.
The court criticized the respondents for procedural delays, emphasizing the need for justice-oriented decision-making, particularly regarding genuine hardships and legislative intent. The court quashed the impugned orders, directed disciplinary action against the responsible officer, and mandated disposal of the rectification application on merits by May 31, 2024, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner.
10) Employment Tenure Prevails Over Technical Objections
In Prathamesh Nayan Mulye v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2024), the Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ challenging the rejection of his appointment as a Laboratory Assistant by the Education Department. The rejection was based on procedural irregularities, including the absence of prior permission and insufficient advertisement compliance.
The Court observed that the petitioner had been in uninterrupted service since 2012, the advertisement was published in a widely circulated newspaper, and the objections raised were minor irregularities that did not invalidate the appointment process. It directed the approval of the petitioner’s appointment within 30 days, imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the school management payable to the Kirtikar Law Library, and instructed compliance with reservation norms in future appointments.