Important Legal Updates From Bombay High Court. [15th to 18th june]
Prabhat Bandhulya | Sameera Siddiqui | Social Thikana | Bombay High Court
KANGANA RANAUT TO SEEK PLEA FOR RENEWING PASSPORT FROM BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court adjourned to 25th June on the plea of Kangana Ranaut who stated being refused to renew passport.
A bench of Justices PB Varale and SP Tavade adjourned the hearing after noting that Ranaut had failed to implead the Passport Authority as a party in the case.
The bench also said that Ranaut’s application was “vague” and did not place all relevant facts on record.
In her Interim application filed through advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, Ranaut said the Passport Authority had refused to renew her passport on account of an FIR registered against her and her sister Rangoli Chandel by the Bandra police earlier this year over some comments they had allegedly made on Twitter in October last year, which the FIR claimed promoted enmity between communites.
Advocate Rizwan Merchant, who appeared in the HC on behalf of the complainant Munnawarali Sayyed, told the bench that Ranaut’s application did not contain any order of the Passport Authority that was under challenge.
To, this the high court bench said it could not pass any orders on mere oral submissions by the party.
The bench accordingly granted advocate Siddiquee the liberty to amend the application and to implead the passport authority as a party by the end of the day.
The bench also dismissed Siddiquee’s request for an earlier date of hearing.
Siddiquee said Ranaut needed to travel out of India for the shooting of her film whose schedule had been fixed for later this week.
The HC, however said June 25 was the earliest date it could assign for the hearing.
“It is just film. The schedule can be changed. First of all, the application is vague. If she (Ranaut) was so vigilant, she could have approached the court with all details in advance. It is just a matter all details in advance. It is just a matter of one week, a film production takes over a year. June 25 is the earliest date we can give” the judges said.
In her application filed on Monday, Ranaut had said she needed to travel to Budapest this month for the shooting of her upcoming film ‘Dhakkad’ and thus, needed her passport renewed.
So, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday adjourned to June 25th hearing on an application filed by actor Kangana Ranaut who stated that Passport Authority had refused to renew her passport citing an FIR registered against her by the Mumbai Police.
BOMBAY HC SAID BCCI, SETS ASIDE ARBITATION’S ORDER OF PAYING 4800 CRORE TO DECCAN CHARGERS.
Four years later, BCCI terminated Deccan Chargers' agreement, saying the franchise failed to honour its payment obligations
A Bench of Justices GS Patel set aside an arbitrator’s order that directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay over Rs 4800 crore to Deccan Charonicle Holding Ltd regarding a disputes for termination of the IPL team. The BCCI had challenged the July 2020 verdict asking it to pay INR 4800 crore.
“The award proceeded in places without reasons, in others by ignoring evidence, in yet others by wandering far afield from the contract, and in taking views that were not even possible,” the Justice Gautam S Patel said in the order.
“In doing so, it brushed aside objections about insufficient pleadings. It granted reliefs not even prayed for and took views that were not possible, i.e. that no reasonable person could have done. Effectively, it rewarded the party in unquestionable breach of its contractual obligations. That is inconceivable and not even a possible view,” it further said.
Deccan Chargers was one of the eight original franchises in the cash-rich cricket league when it started in 2008. Four years later, BCCI terminated Deccan Chargers’ agreement, saying the franchise failed to honour its payment obligations.
NOTICE ISSUE TO PMC AFTER 41 BALEWADI RESIDENTS ALLEGE IRREGULARITES IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION BY BOMBAY HC
41 Balewadi residents have approached the HC challenging the PMC on how it has levied property tax.
The High Court heard the petition challenging the PMC over its calculation and collection of property tax, while issuing notice to the PMC to respond in two weeks statement by the lawyer Satya Muley representing the petitioners.
As many as 41 Balewadi residents have approaches the HC challenging the PMC on how it has levied property tax. They have alleged that it is discriminatory and non-transparent and have sought a stay on the implementation of two government resolution(GR) related to property tax of the PMC.
The petitioners referred to the GRs dated October 25th 2018 and August 1st was levying property tax. The GRs implemented by the PMC are arbitrary, discriminative, retrospective and non- transparent stated by petition.
Petitioners said according to the 2019 GR, the state government rescinded the civic body resolution of 1970, which allowed 40 per cent concession on estimated annual rent and 15 per cent deduction for repair and maintenance on annual rent while calculating annual rateable value (ARV) of residential property occupied by owner. However, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, in its audit report of the state government for 2013-14, pointed out that while determining ARV of properties in the PMC, deduction of repairs from the annual rent was incorrectly allowed at 15 per cent as against 10 per cent. The state government on October 25, 2018, suspended the civic body resolution of 1970.
Further, the PMC, citing May 28, 2019 communication of the state government, decided to recover excess amount arising due to grant of concession of 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent from 2010-11, the petition stated.
It also said there should be a stay on the implementation of the GR issued on August 1, 2019, till the final disposal of the petition, and that financial benefits to all petitioners and similar property owners in the city should be continued.
So, the Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the PMC over alleged irregularities in collection of property tax as pointed out by 41 residents of Balewadi.
MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT UNDER QUESTIONED BY BOMBAY HC HOW SONU SOOD , MLA ZEESHAN SIDDIQUE PRODUCED ANTI-COVID DRUGS.
The HC had directed the state government and the Centre to probe how celebrities and politicians had managed to procure and distribute anti-coronavirus drugs to the public when the supply of the same was scarce and was supposed to be allocated to states by the Union government. A bench of Justices S P Deshmukh and G S Kulkarni issued the direction to the Maharashtra government after state Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni told the HC that it had registered a criminal case at the Mazgaon metropolitan court against a charitable trust, BDR Foundation, and its trustees for supplying anti-COVID drug Remdesivir to Siddique even though the trust did not have requisite licence. Kumbhakoni said that Siddique had been merely diverting the drug to citizens, who had approached him, so no action had been taken against him yet.
He further said that Sonu Sood had received the drugs from several pharmacies located inside the private Lifeline Care Hospital in Goregaon. Pharma Company Cipla had supplied Remdesivir to these pharmacies and inquiry into it was still going on, Kumbhakoni said. He was responding to previous orders of the high court passed while hearing a bunch of public interest litigations (PILs) on several issues related to the management of drugs and resources required to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. The HC had directed the state government and the Centre to probe how celebrities and politicians had managed to procure and distribute anti-coronavirus drugs to the public when the supply of the same was scarce and was supposed to be allocated to states by the Union government. On Wednesday, the HC asked if initiating action against the charitable trust was adequate and should the state not look further into the roles played by Siddique, Sood, and any other celebrities concerned? The HC referred to a news story published on Wednesday, which said that a private housing society in the city had said that it had probably been cheated and provided spurious anti-COVID-19 vaccines by those who had carried out a vaccination drive for its residents.
So, The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Maharashtra government to scrutinise the role that local Congress MLA Zeeshan Siddique and actor Sonu Sood played in procurement and supply of anti-COVID drugs to citizens, following their SOS calls and appeals on social media.