The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was directed by the Bombay High Court to pay employer contributions to the ESI Corporation, which is responsible for the welfare of all companies’ employees through Justice  Bharati Dangre in the case of BCCI vs Regional Director, ESI Corporation (FIRST APPEAL ST NO.25980 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1026 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 25980 OF 2021)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The ESI Court in Mumbai had ruled that the board could be classified as a “shop” under the Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act and would, thus, be protected by Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The BCCI had appealed this ruling, which was being heard by the court.

This choice was made after an unexpected inspection by an insurance inspector in April or May 2011 during which the wages of the staff members present at the board office were inspected.

Then, on July 1, 2014, a notice in Proforma C-18 was received, claiming a contribution of 5,04,075 as Employees State Insurance Contribution for the period starting in May 2007 and ending in March 2014.

The BCCI,  argued that because it is the country’s cricket governing body and has as its main goals the administration, promotion, and control of the game nationwide including women’s cricket as well as the encouragement of the formation of State, regional, and other cricket associations and thus, it is not subject to the ESI Act. As a result, it is neither protected by the Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act or registered as a “shop.”

JUDGEMENT:

The Indian Premier League, which the Court claimed to be the most-watched cricket league in the world, was one of the commercial endeavors carried out by the BCCI, as indicated by single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre in her order.

Because of this, even though the BCCI’s Memorandum of Association states that all of the organization’s income, assets, and properties must be used to advance its goals, including financially and through other means, the BCCI would be considered a “shop” under the terms of the Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act because it engages in a variety of commercial activities.

As a result, the Court decided that it will fall under the ESI Act’s purview.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement

The Bombay High Court held that the decision to admit a student is entirely up to the school and that a student cannot claim admission in an unaided minority school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 through the bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap in the case of Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod .vs The Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten, Nagpur and ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2021 )

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petition was filed by Shri S. S. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, who raised a new issue as a result of the denial of the petitioner’s application for admission to the first standard at the Mother’s Pet Education Society-run Centre Point School, Dabha Branch. Respondent No. 1 School is run by Mother’s Pet Education Society, a society. However, the Society has not been included in this. The petitioner is allegedly harmed by the application form’s unfair denial and the delayed notification of that rejection. For this reason, the petitioner’s knowledgeable counsel asks the court for permission to amend the petition in accordance with the suggested changes in the application.

Mr. W. T. Mathew, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, vigorously challenged this on a number of grounds. According to the law established by the Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan.v/s. Union of India and Anr.,(2012). He further contends that the petitioner does not have the right to request admission to the first standard of a school that is an un-aided minority private school.

JUDGEMENT:

A Private Minority Unaided School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the aforementioned case. As a result, there is no corresponding right granted to a student to apply for admission to such a school, and doing so is entirely up to the discretion and prerogative of the Private Minority Unaided School.

Second, there might be a delay in the School notifying the petitioner that their application was rejected, but this delay in notification by itself would not provide the petitioner with the right to apply for admission to that school. The petitioner would only need to seek an alternative legal remedy to compensate for any loss that may have resulted from the communication delay.

Thus, the petition was disposed of.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement

A man accused of swearing allegiance to the outlawed terrorist group Islamic State and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been granted bail by the Bombay High Court through A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and VG Bisht in the case of Mohammad Raisuddin v The National Investigating Agency and anr (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2019 )

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant sought bail on the basis of the merits, on the basis of parity, and on the basis of the trial’s delayed start. Regarding the merits, the appellant’s knowledgeable lawyer argued that there is simply no convincing, valid, or admissible evidence linking him to the accused crime. He argued that reading the statements of the four witnesses, on whom the prosecution relies, would only show that the accused, including the appellant, and the witnesses would discuss threats to Islam, ISIS’s actions, as well as other issues like the beef ban, racial unrest, injustice toward Muslims in Palestine, etc.

Advocate Mubin Solkar represented Raisuddin. The Oath, the contents of which are freely accessible online, was initially delivered to the State Examiner of Documents in Aurangabad, according to Solkar, but they were unable to locate an expert in Arabic or Urdu to compare it with the accused’s handwriting samples.

Raisuddin and three other people were accused by the NIA of plotting an attack on the Aurangabad Unit of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). They were detained in 2016 and charged under multiple conspiracy-related sections of the IPC and the UAPA. The agency also claimed that one of Raisuddin’s fellow defendants had contact with Islamic State fighters and another had acquired an IED. He is charged with conspiring since a co-home accused’s also included an oath of allegiance.

Special Public Prosecutor Mrs. Pai vigorously opposed the appeal. She argued that there is no reason to disagree with the contested judgement rejecting the appellant’s bail request and that the allegations against the appellant are at least initially serious. She also claimed that the trial’s delayed start was not a reason to increase the appellant’s bail.

JUDGEMENT:

Mohammed Raisuddin was granted bail by a divisional bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and VG Bisht who noted that different lab results had linked the accused’s handwriting to a “oath” document. Furthermore, the opinion in favour of the accused was withheld by NIA for more than two years.

Even if it weren’t, the court ruled that the oath designating a former IS leader as the “caliph” of Muslims wasn’t initially incriminating. The bench ruled that it was only the witnesses’ view that the accused were jihadists and fundamentalists since they frequently discussed the beef prohibition, the Dadri event, the Muzaffarpur incident, the Gujarat riots, and Islam.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement