The B&B Causelist #217: BCI CoP Rules, Udta Punjab, Shani Shingnapur & more (Evening Updates)

A summary of the important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors..Bombay High Court.Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zone.Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr.Phantom Films Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.The Mazgaon Court Bar Association v State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors.Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..Supreme Court of India.1. Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors..[Item 4 in court 3 – IA 2 in TC(C) 126/2015].Bench: PC Ghose, Amitava Roy JJ..The case pertaining to the challenge to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. Today, the court will hear an impleadment application filed by Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. Read more here..Bombay High Court.For Pronouncement of Judgement.1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. National Green Tribunal western zone.[Item 901 Court 46- WP(OS)/1720/2014].Bench: CJ DH Waghela, MS Sonak J.A petition regarding the boundary wall at the Kanjurmarg dumping site. The BMC was directed to provide a timeline with regard to demolition of the compound wall; the demolition had been ordered way back in 2013. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: The BMC has been ordered to demolish the compound wall which was in violation of CRZ Rules within 2 months..For Pronouncement of Judgement.2. Smt. Sunita Prashant Patil v. Smt. Vidya Bal and Anr..[Item 902 Court 46- CAI(civil)/63/2016].Bench: CJ DH Waghela and MS Sonak JJ.The intervenors in the Shani Shingnapur matter, contend that the temple authority’s decision to allow entry of women into the Shani Shignapur (sanctum sanctorum) is flawed as it goes aginst tradition. The order was reserved..Today in court: The intervention application has been found to be non-maintainable and has been rejected..3. Phantom Films Ltd v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.[Item 901 Court 31- WPST(OS)/1529/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The producers Udta Punjab have moved court against the censor board’s order recommending substantial cuts to the movie. Yesterday both sides submitted their arguements regarding the cuts suggested by the review committee..Senior Counsel Ravi Kadam appears for the petitioners and Advait Sethna appeared for the CBFC..4. The Mazgaon Court Bar Association v State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors..[Item 903 Court 31- WP(OS)/811/2015].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioners seek the High Court’s intervention in the construction of a new court complex in Mazgaon. Previously, the state government’s allocation of 29 crore for this financial year met with severe criticism by the division bench. Acting Advocate General Rohit Deo assured the court that in 10 days the process of tendering for demolition (of old building) will start, and the tender for laying the foundation for the new complex will also be done soon..Today in court: The state government submitted that process of dismantling of the court building began on June 4 and a time period of 2 months has been given to the contractor. Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia submitted that the BMC is yet to process their application regarding grant of additional FSI under redevelopement for the new building..To this Dharmadhikari J said –.You don’t need to seek any permission from the civic body, you have protection under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. The BMC’s as well as the state’s lawyers are unaware of this! These reasons are untenable..The matter was adjourned to August 5, when the State will submit a report on all the compliances made..5. Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 13 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2013].Bench: AS Oka, PD Naik JJ..A petition seeking the effective implementation and greater awareness of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. Mahrukh Adenwala has appeared for the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) which is assisting the court in this case. The BMC had been directed to be added as a respondent in the matter since many tehsildars act as DPO’s (Dowry Prohibition Officers). For more details read our previous report..Today in court: Oka J asked Acting AG Rohit Deo to direct the concerned officials to check random matrimonial websites and take necessary steps if they are found to be in violation of the said act. Mahrukh Adenwala pointed out that the Act is not being implemented at the state level since only 39 cases under the act were registered in the state whereas 10,000 cases were registered all over the country..The petitioner appearing in person Priscilla Samuel pointed out how the Superintendant officer appointed as DPO already has another assignment of looking after children homes..A detailed order will now be passed next Thursday.

The B&B Causelist #217: BCI CoP Rules, Udta Punjab, Shani Shingnapur & more (Evening Updates)

Related Stories