Uncategorized Archives - Page 34 of 72

27 Feb

Sandeep Kudale of the Congress was charged after postings on social media criticising Chandrakant Patil of the BJP were dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

Sandeep Kudale, a member of the Congress party, was the subject of two FIRs that the Bombay High Court dismissed on Monday. The court also ordered the State to pay the police officer’s salary for unlawful arrest fees of Rs. 25,000. Both FIRs were dismissed and costs were levied by the division bench of Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan and Justice Revati Mohite-Dere in the case of Sandeep Kudale V. State of Maharashtra ( Case No. WPST/21880/2022)

FACTS OF THE CASE :

In response to Chandrakant Patil, the state minister for higher education, comments about Dr. BR Ambedkar and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Kudale were detained on December 11, 2022, by the Pune Police under sections 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) of the IPC (promoting animosity between different groups).

In a police report filed at the Kothrud Police Station, Kudale was accused of inciting animosity between various groups through a video he posted on social media in response to a statement made by minister Chandrakant Patil about how Dr. BR Ambedkar and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule started schools by pleading for donations. The FIR further claimed that Kudale recorded a video while standing outside Patil’s home, and that the posts fostered animosity towards Patil.

The FIR is false, and the alleged offences are not supported, according to Kudale’s attorneys Subodh Desai and Lokesh Zade. He had also maintained that Kudale was the subject of identical FIRs. Due to a possible political vendetta between the complainant, a member of the BJP, and Kudale, a member of the Congress Party, Kudale had claimed in his argument that there was a chance of false accusations. The petition claimed that the purported hostility must exist between two or more communities, but section 153A is not invoked by the mere mention of another community. Kudale’s appeal further asserts that there was no mens rea to sow discord among various tribes and communities of people.

JUDGEMENT:

Police personnel should be aware of the repercussions of their acts, said Justice Dere, who noted that there had been a violation of the court’s directives. especially when there is no evidence to support arresting someone. She stated that there were numerous other instances like this. The judge continued, cutting off the potential of pressure to register cases, “Officers should learn to say no.”

Judge Dere said that if this attitude persisted, the costs would be increased. The bench held that the Congress worker’s comments did not violate Section 153A of the IPC because they were obviously directed at the Minister’s allegedly disparaging remarks about Dr. Ambedkar on social media.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

24 Feb

ED’s investigation of Jet Airlines’ founder Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita is quashed by the Bombay High Court.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Former Jet Airways Chairman Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita can now breathe a sigh of relief as the Bombay High Court invalidated the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) ECIR against them. The order was made in response to a petition filed by the two justices asking for the ECIR against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to be quashed. The petition was filed by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan (PMLA).

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The petitioners’ senior attorneys, Ravi Kadam and Aabad Ponda, argued that there was no predicate offence, as necessary, for the ED to examine the ECIR. The police claimed they filed a “C” Summary Report in response to the complaint made to the MRA Marg Police Station in Mumbai.

The attorneys further argued that even the protest petition filed by ED was denied, and both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the order. They said that the ECIR would therefore need to be overturned.

In order to argue for the dismissal of the PMLA case, the attorneys cited the Supreme Court rulings in Parvathi Kollur & Anr. vs. State by Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Shreeram Shirsaat, the attorney for ED, stated on Thursday that there was nothing more to dispute about given the judgement.

Yet he added that it might not be remembered as his speech and that the court might issue the proper orders.

JUDGEMENT :

The bench ruled on Thursday that the petition was acceptable under prayer clause (a).

The order was made in response to a petition filed by the two justices asking for the ECIR against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to be quashed. The petition was filed by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan (PMLA).

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

21 Feb

The Bombay High Court upholds POCSO’s conviction when a teacher rapes a student while forcing her to wear a “Mangalsutra”.

Prime Legal

Blog, Uncategorized

The Bombay High Court recently affirmed a man’s conviction for kidnapping and raping his young student, noting that rather than preparing kids to be good citizens, he tarnished the revered bond between a student and a teacher. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by a division of Judge Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase sitting in Nagpur, in the case of Arvind s/o Sarjerao Devkar v. State of Maharashtra( Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2015 )

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, kidnapping, prostitution of a juvenile girl under section 366A, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under sections 6 and 4 of the 2012 Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act. He received a ten-year term of strict incarceration. The state appealed in order to have the sentence lengthened.

The victim was a young girl enrolled in the seventh grade. One morning, according to her father, neither the house nor the village had his daughter. He complained after the child’s teacher, the appellant, called him to let him know he was taking the child on vacation and would be back in three to four days.

The appellant was raised at Trimbakeshwar, Nashik, along with the young girl. The girl had been sexually assaulted, a medical investigation indicated. The child told him she didn’t want to stay in the house and was planning to commit suicide, the appellant alleged, after a fight between her and her parents. He therefore brought her along to stop her from taking her own life.

The girl’s testimony against the appellant, according to the state, supported on cross-examination. It was contended that the trial judge failed by being too lenient to the appellant and should have sentenced him to life in prison.

The young girl claimed in her testimony that the appellant provided her with a cell phone. One evening, he called and asked her to meet him somewhere. After that, he led her to the Mahadev Temple in Konkani and bound her with a Mangalsutra by force, telling her they would have to act like a couple. She claimed that after that, they travelled to a number of locations before stopping for two nights at a lodge in Saputara (Gujarat), where the appellant sexually assaulted her twice.

JUDGEMENT :

As a teacher, the appellant can be assumed to have been aware of the age range of a pupil enrolled in the seventh grade, according to the court’s ruling. The appellant did not provide any proof to support his claim that he removed the girl from her home to stop her from committing suicide, the court noted. The court said, “In reality, with such a plea, in our judgement, he has conceded that he took the girl with the ulterior goal of developing relations with her.”

The court ruled that because the little girl clearly testified that the appellant committed the offence, more proof is not necessary. “Given such a minor’s perspective, there is no need for more proof to support the claim that there was forced sexual contact. Her testimony alone is enough to convict the defendant. Hence, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the accused pushed himself upon the little girl and committed a rape.

According to the court, the sentence imposed by the trial judge is adequate and there is no justification for increasing it. As a result, it also rejected the state’s appeal.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

21 Feb

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the NALSA Program for Undertrial Prisoners cannot eliminate the court’s discretion to grant or deny bail.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

According to the Bombay High Court, in the case of Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra ( Criminal Bail Application No. 2777 of 2022) the NALSA’s plan for the release of convicts who are awaiting trial is intended to draw attention to the undertrial inmates who are languishing in jail, but it cannot supersede the court’s power to grant or deny bail to such detainees based on merits. When rejecting bail to a murder suspect, Justice S. M. Modak noted that nothing could interfere with the court’s right to decide whether to grant bail.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The accused, who was charged with a murder offence under Section 302 of the IPC, requested bail under Trials Over 65 Years Old Category 16 of the UTRC@75 Scheme. The nature of the offence or the length of the accused’s imprisonment as a prisoner pending trial are not mentioned in this category. The accused was eligible because he was 71 years old. The Sessions Court rejected his request for bail.

According to attorney Hrishikesh R. Chavan, if the merits of the cases are taken into account, the scheme’s goals will be defeated. The State’s APP N. B. Patil argued that the case’s merits must be taken into consideration; otherwise, many inmates awaiting trial will be released on bail, regardless of the case’s merits. The Sessions Court denied the accused’s bail request after the court took notice of the accused’s attempt to assassinate four witnesses.

The plan was designed with the high percentage of convicts awaiting trial, the court remarked. The plan required the government to take action to free the convicts awaiting trial. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the accused is ineligible for release after the trial court and HC weighed the merits.

JUDGEMENT :

“It is true that it is the discretion of the concerned Court ; whether to grant bail or not. Such discretion cannot be taken away by any act. So, we gather that by framing such a scheme, the attention of the concerned stakeholders is brought to the effect that in your district, there are certain prisoners who are languishing in jail for so many years.”, the Court stated.

The trial has already begun, the court said. Hence, it instructed the trial court to take into account the fact that the accused is older than 65 and the plan was set up for the release of undertrial detainees older than 65.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

20 Feb

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the GST Act cannot be interpreted to deny citizens the right to engage in commerce.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

The provisions of the GST statute cannot be read in a way that prevents any citizen or subject from engaging in trade and commerce, according to the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench. The division bench of Justice Mangesh M Patel and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed the same in the case of Rohit Enterprises Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan (Writ Petition No. 11833 Of 2022)

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The assessee/petitioner works in the fabrication sector. It is registered under both the 2017 Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act and the 2017 Central Goods and Services Tax Act. His company received the registration certificate.

The petitioner claimed that GST returns for the period beginning in August 2021 could not be filed because he had undergone angioplasty and the company had experienced a financial setback as a result of the pandemic.

If a registered individual or entity fails to submit three consecutive returns, the proper offices may cancel registration pursuant to Section 29(2) of the GST Act.

The petitioner was given seven working days to provide an answer after the State Revenue Officer in Aurangabad issued a “show-cause” notice. The message specified that the petitioner’s registration was currently suspended. On March 3, 2022, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. He asked for the notice to be revoked, citing the cause of the financial crisis. The registration was, however, revoked by the State Tax Officer as of August 21, 2021.

The petitioner asked for the registration’s cancellation to be overturned. The state tax officer responded by sending a show-cause letter for the application’s denial. The petitioner was required to submit the response together with any necessary supporting documentation, such as bank statements up to the date of the notification, a challan for tax, interest, and a late filing fee, within 7 days of receiving the notice. A hearing in the matter was slated for April 25, 2022. Finally, the petitioner’s plea for reversal of cancellation was denied by the state tax officer.

The petitioner claimed that he is a vendor for Bajaj Auto Limited and relies on fabrication for his livelihood. The pandemic scenario hindered the petitioner’s business operations, resulting in significant financial losses.

JUDGEMENT :

“Despite any flaws in the GST enactment plan, the constitutional promise must be upheld because it is unqualified and unambiguous. Contrary to the constitutional protection provided by Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to practice a trade or profession cannot be restricted. The state will lose money if the petitioner’s request to reinstate the registration is denied, and the GST regime’s ultimate purpose would be unsuccessful “Judge Mangesh M. Patel and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar’s division bench noted.

Upon granting the appeal, the court ruled that it is not in the government’s best interest to restrict the rights of entrepreneurs like the petitioner, even while considering the purpose of the provisions under the GST Act. The petitioner must be let to keep operating and bring in money for the state. The petitioner has said in front of us that they are prepared and willing to pay all of the fees as well as any applicable penalties and interest.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 72