14
Nation @ Glance
Nation @ Glance
High Court & Tribunal News Around The Nation
Bombay High Court
`5 LAKH IMPOSED FOR RE-ARGUING CASE WITH DIFFERENT
LAWYERS: BOMBAY HC
Friday, October 13, 2017
challenged before the higher court but liberty is sought to
present a review petition. The higher court, with greatest
respect, is informed that certain points or arguments,
allegedly crucial to the case and going to the root of the
matter were either not canvassed or canvassed but not
considered. Such an argument is raised before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India at the instance of the aggrieved
parties by a counsel instructed by an advocate who had no
opportunity to argue the matter before this court.”
Case Background
A `5 lakh cost was imposed on petitioners reminding them
about the limitations of a review jurisdiction by the Bombay
High Court. A bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice
MS Sonak observed that lately litigants try to go behind
binding orders of the high court by canvassing arguments
before the Supreme Court that do not give the entire or true
picture of the case, and all this is done taking advantage of
the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a review.
Dismissing the review petition, at the very outset of this
20-page order filed by Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing
Society Limited and Eco Struck Developers, the court noted:
“It is most unfortunate and we must bring this to the notice
of all concerned that routinely, review petitions are filed in
this court, after the orders under review are unsuccessfully
Tenants/occupants of the concerned property applied to
MHADA for acquisition saying that they would maintain
and repair the said property. As soon as the charitable
trust that originally owned the property was no longer in
the picture, the occupants then appointed a developer.
In 2007, the Charitable Trust challenged it, which was
rejected by an order dated December 7, 2007. Then, the
co-operative society formed by the occupants/tenants of
the said property and the developers sought to get out of
the acquisition that already took place in 1992. However,
it was noted by the high court that petitioners, who had
approached this court earlier, pleaded before the apex court
that no purpose was served by acquiring the property as
“the respondents have failed to offer any amicable solutions
to the tenants/occupants on account of lack of funds”.
REPEATEDLY WATCHING A CHILD WITH SEXUAL INTENT OFFENSIVE
UNDER POCSO: BOMBAY HC
Monday, September 11, 2017
If a person with sexual intent repeatedly or constantly follows
or watches or contacts a child either directly or through other
means, then he can be said to have committed an offense
defined under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, as stated by the
Bombay High Court. Manju Tejbal Vishwakarma, the victim’s
mother filed the writ petition and Valji Vadher, the accused
challenged the proceedings ongoing against him in the
special court established under the POCSO Act. An FIR was
reported against both of them under Section 11 of the
POCSO Act at Daman. The victim minor girl had said in her
statement recorded on February 5, 2016, that the accused
Valji Vadher always used to see her with ‘bad intent,’ Justice
A M Badar noted this while hearing the petition.
The court observed: “Watching a female child with sexual
intent comes under the mischief covered by Section 11
of the POCSO Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
N ovember 2017 | L egal E ra | www . legaleraonline . com
are no sufficient grounds to proceed against accused Valji
Vadher for the offense as defined by Section 11 and made
punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.”
The court, therefore, declined the plea of quashing the FIR
against Vadher and decided to dispose of the writ petition.