Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part II]
Live LawCitations 2024 LiveLaw 216 – 2024 LiveLaw 435: Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce Plea Case Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr. Dismissal From Service Is Disproportionate For Misconduct Of Overwriting Reasons Of Absence On Gatepass: Bombay High Court Case Title: Danfoss Systems Ltd v. Johnson Gomes Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 242 A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Danfoss Systems Ltd vs Johnson Gomes has held that dismissal of service of a workman was disproportionate for an offence of overwriting the reason of absence on the Gatepass. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 247 A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors held that the court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the Bombay High Court Upholds Renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv Case Title: Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Union of India and Ors. The court further held that “The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period and, therefore, it is in that context that the condition of two surviving children is imposed” No Irreversible Actions In Winding Up, Company Court Can Transfer Proceedings To NCLT: Bombay High Court Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction In the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Classic Diamonds Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 279 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja held that as long as no irreversible actions, such as actual sales of immovable or movable properties, have occurred, the Company Court retains the discretion to transfer proceedings to the NCLT. A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition seeking refund of the amount observing – “both as per the RBI Circular and the said Policy of Respondent No.2, the liability of the Petitioners in respect of the said unauthorized transactions would be zero as the unauthorized transactions have taken place due to a third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with Respondent No.2 nor with the Petitioners.In these circumstances, as per the RBI Circular and as per the Policy of Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount from Respondent No.2.” Bombay High Court Allows Slaughtering Of Animals For Bakri Eid In Protected Area Around Vishalgad Fort Case Title: Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.