Blog

The Bombay High Court invalidated the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the CBI against Rhea Chakraborty and her family concerning the investigation into actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, emphasizing that the mere registration of an FIR does not warrant the issuance of an LOC. "The court emphasized that the Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot linger indefinitely, particularly in this instance, where it extended for over 3½ years. Despite the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation, a fact undisputed, the court highlighted that the fundamental right to travel cannot be restricted except through a due process established by law." Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over a division bench, granted the petitions submitted by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their parents, Indrajit and Sandhya, to annul the LOCs issued against them in 2020. The court acknowledged the Chakrabortys' cooperation with the CBI's investigation, highlighting their prompt attendance at the CBI office whenever summoned, and found no evidence of attempts to evade arrest or summons on their part. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. .

Read more

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the Sessions Court not to proceed in the matter till the next date of hearing. The Applicant Chandrashekhar .S. Jhadav a retired chief fire officer of NMC has approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court by filing criminal application challenging the session court order of rejecting the application for discharge. The offense under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of corruption act, came to be registered in Crime No.3520 of 2013 against the applicant Chandrashekhar Jhadav and other co-accused, on the pretext that by issuing the Fire NOC to one Pratibha Khandelwal to the tune of Rs.1,13,75,500/- The Session Court rejected the applicant for discharge filed by the applicant/accused Shri Chandrashekhar Jhadav. The matter came before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice M.W. Chandwani. The Counsel for Applicant Adv. Ishwar.S. Charlewar along with Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti contended before the court that there are no allegations about the accepting any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage which is a condition precedent of attracting Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Adv. Ishwar .S. Charlewar, Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti appeared for the applicant and APP N.B. Jawade represented the state. .

Read more

Supreme Court: Resigned Director Not Liable for Cheque Bounce In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a director who resigns before a company issues a cheque cannot be held accountable for its bounce. The court's decision, grounded in Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizes the legal protection afforded to directors who have severed ties with a company. The case revolved around a complaint alleging cheque dishonor due to insufficient funds, invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol scrutinized the timeline, noting that the director's resignation preceded the issuance of the disputed cheque. They emphasized that the director had submitted Form 32 in compliance with the Companies Act, 1956, indicating the termination of their association with the company. The court highlighted the dates, with resignations occurring on December 9th, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, while the cheque in question was issued on March 22nd, 2014. This chronological distinction absolved the resigned director from any responsibility for the company's affairs at the time of the cheque issuance. Represented by AOR K. Parameshwar, the appellant successfully argued that the director had no involvement in the issuance of the cheque, as evidenced by Form 32 and the resignation dates. Conversely, AOR Sumeer Sodhi represented the respondent. The court's ruling underscores the significance of Form 32, which unequivocally demonstrates a director's disassociation from the company and absolves them of liability for subsequent financial transactions. By aligning with the Companies Act and prioritizing legal compliance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the protection afforded to directors who have formally resigned from their positions before the occurrence of financial obligations. .

Read more

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble justice Urmila Joshi Phalke has granted bail to accused Murari Baburao Samrutwar R/o. of Chandrapur in the offence registered under the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. One Sangita Gunwant Meshram lodged the report with police station Durgapur district Chandrapur against Murari Samrutwar alleging that the Murari Samrutwar is working as a supervisor. When the first informant Sangita Meshram inquired about the work the accused Murari Samrutwar humiliated the first informant and others by referring there caste and insulted them. On the basis of report, the offence under section 294, 506 of IPC and section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be registered. The accused approached before the Hon’ble Sessions court by filing the application for grant of anticipatory bail however, the same came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Sessions Court as there is a bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that ‘Merely calling a person by his caste name may amount to insult or abuse to him, but it cannot be said to be with intent to humiliate such persons. There must be intentional insults or intimidation with intent to humiliate members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.’ The HC observes that in the present case the ingredients of section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of Atrocities Act are not satisfied therefore bar under section 18 is not attracted. ADVOCATE I.S. CHARLEWAR appeared for the appellant MR. HULKE appeared for the State and MR. A. M GEDAM appeared for the first informant Sangita Meshram. .

Read more

'Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki S. A. Menezes quashed a case registered against the husband (petitioner) under section 363 of IPC for allegedly taking away his 3 years old son from the custody of wife.' The court has refered to the proviso to the Hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 which defines the 'Natural Guardian' of the child. The court noted that the husband (petitioner) is a natural guardian and he is a lawful guardian too. Booked on the aforesaid fact, the High Court quash the first the information report holding that the continuation of such prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law..

Read more

‘That, the Supreme Court also condemns the role of the Indian Overseas Bank in taking possession of the properties and directed to maintain status quo ante.’ That, the Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of the Hon’ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Shri Justice Pankaj Mittal, in Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal No.6736 of 2023 pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27th September 2023 and also dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the statutory remedy was available to the respondent no.1- Bank. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 is no doubt very wide; however the propriety and judicial discipline required the Hon’ble High Court not to entertain such petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order on the petition filed by one Pankajkumar Tiwari, alleging that the High Court has passed the interim orders directing to deliver the possession to the Overseas Bank without hearing him and even contended that the writ Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in the light of the fact that the order of appointing receiver, which was impugned in the Writ Petition before Bombay High Court was passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Siwan (Uttar Pradesh). The Hon’ble Apex Court while allowing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Pankajkumar Tiwari, directed the respondent no.1- Indian Overseas Bank to approach the Court at Siwan and to file appropriate written statement and reply to the application for appointment of receiver. Advocate Sunil Murarka, Satyajit Desai, Ishwar S. Charlewar, Angha S. Desai, appeared for the petitioner – Pankajkumar Tiwari and Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan along with Prachi Johri, Drupad Waghnani appeared for respondent No.1- Indian Overseas Bank..

Read more

‘That, the Supreme Court also condemns the role of the Indian Overseas Bank in taking possession of the properties and directed to maintain status quo ante.’ That, the Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of the Hon’ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Shri Justice Pankaj Mittal, in Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal No.6736 of 2023 pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27th September 2023 and also dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the statutory remedy was available to the respondent no.1- Bank. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 is no doubt very wide; however the propriety and judicial discipline required the Hon’ble High Court not to entertain such petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order on the petition filed by one Pankajkumar Tiwari, alleging that the High Court has passed the interim orders directing to deliver the possession to the Overseas Bank without hearing him and even contended that the writ Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in the light of the fact that the order of appointing receiver, which was impugned in the Writ Petition before Bombay High Court was passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Siwan (Uttar Pradesh). The Hon’ble Apex Court while allowing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Pankajkumar Tiwari, directed the respondent no.1- Indian Overseas Bank to approach the Court at Siwan and to file appropriate written statement and reply to the application for appointment of receiver. Advocate Sunil Murarka, Satyajit Desai, Ishwar S. Charlewar, Angha S. Desai, appeared for the petitioner – Pankajkumar Tiwari and Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan along with Prachi Johri, Drupad Waghnani appeared for respondent No.1- Indian Overseas Bank..

Read more

The petitioners Kalpak Deshmukh, Dhananjay Deshmukh, Sachin Thakre, Pandurang Pawar, Vivek Kahare, Sandeep Kolhe, Sushma Suryawanshi, Swati Golhar, Pranita Wattamwar, Deepali Satpute, Seema Isani, filed the petition before the high court through their Advocate Deepa I. Charlewar, Ishwar S. Charlewar. The Petitioners contended in the petition about the various illegalities in the transfer. The petitioners mainly contended that the process of transfer which was conducted through the process of transfer which was conducted through a private agency i.e. M/s Vinsis system is illegal and there are no powers under the law to delegate the power to conduct the core activities of transfer. Besides this, the petitioners have also challenged the government resolution dated 7/4/21. The Hon'ble vacation Judge comprising of Justice Mahendra Chandwani pleased to issue the notices in the matter and also by way of interim order directed the respondents not to give effects to the transfer order, until further order. Adv. ISHWAR S. CHARLEWAR Appeared for petitioners and AGP appeared for the State. .

Read more

Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has allowed the first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by one Choitram Bohumal Goplani the resident of Gondia. The reference filed by the appellant Choitram was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not abused any evidence before the Reference Court. While dismissing the reference the Reference Court gave the finding that the burden of proof that compensation awarded was inadequate and insufficient lies upon the claimant and the claimant has not discharged the burden. Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke while setting aside the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, has observed that the reference is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon the Land Acquisition Officer in his award. Unless this same is produced and proved before the Court. The land of appellant was acquired for Railways Gauge Conversion Project. Adv. Ishwar S. Charlewar appeared for the appellant and V.M. Gadkari appeared for the Ministry of Railway. Read Judgment here:- https://pdf.ac/1SMh4Y .

Read more