Latest news with #AjeyGadkari
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Time of India
HC asks DGP why police ignoring its own circulars
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed the director general of police to personally reply explaining why circulars issued by the DGP office are not followed by police personnel. "It appears to us that in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following the discipline and mandatory directions issued by the office of the director general of police,'' said Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil on Monday. The judges heard two petitions to quash an FIR by Thane's Vartak Nagar police station under IPC sections for cheating, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of property. They were "astonished to hear a bald submission", based on instructions, from prosecutor Ashish Satpute that though the "crime-in-question" (FIR) was registered on June 3, 2024, "more than 13 months ago", "the basic tenet of investigation, ie drawing of panchnama of the scene of offence or the premises" has not been carried out by the investigating officer (IO) till today. The judges noticed that "as usual" the case diary was maintained "in an absolute casual manner… in a yellow colour plastic file". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Zo bestrijden vrouwen van 60+ incontinentie – helemaal discreet Damesondergoed Meer informatie Undo The first page had no number and date. It was typed on a ledger paper. Pages 1 to 13 were in loose sheets. They said thus it is clear that the IO has violated mandate of Section 172 (1B) of the Criminal Procedure Code that a case diary shall be a volume and duly paginated, coupled with various circulars/directions of the DGP office on maintaining case diaries. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai They took note of various DGP office circulars including the last one issued in Feb 2024, adding: "Undoubtedly all police personnel in Maharashtra 'must' follow the mandate of law" as per CrPC provisions as also DGP office directions. The judges said they were "left with no alternative" but to direct the DGP to file a detailed reply to the petition and to explain why circulars are not followed by subordinate officers/police personnel.
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Lawyers are not employees of Bar Council: HC refuses to direct for ICC under PoSH
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday refused to issue directions to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to constitute an internal complaints committee (ICC) to deal with complaints of sexual harassment under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) at Workplace Act, 2013 as lawyers are not employers of the bar council. Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) A division bench of justice Ajey Gadkari and justice Rajesh Patil was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Women Legal Association seeking a permanent grievance redressal mechanism to address complaints of sexual harassment against lawyers. The PoSH Act protects women from sexual harassment in the workplace and provides a mechanism for complaint redressal. It mandates the formation of ICCs in organizations with 10 or more employees to handle such complaints. Under the Act, the employer is responsible for creating a safe working environment, formulating a policy against sexual harassment and establishing an ICC. However, the court held that the provisions of the PoSH Act would not apply to the complaints of female lawyers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the BCMG as there was no 'employee-employer' relationship between the lawyers and the bar councils. 'The provisions of the Act of 2013 apply when there is an employee-employer relationship. But in the case of advocates and the BCI or the BCMG, there is no such relationship as neither the BCI nor the BCMG can be said to be employers of the advocates and, thus the provisions of the Act of 2013 will not apply to complaints filed by lady lawyers,' the court said while rejecting the relief. 'It is, however, made clear that the provisions will apply on complaints filed by any of the employees or the committee members of the BCI and BCMG,' the court observed. It added that Section 35 of the Advocates Act provides action against professional or other misconduct by the lawyers. 'This is a remedy available for lady lawyers, to file complaints against any kind of harassment which may amount to professional or other misconduct,' the bench added.
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HC slaps ₹2 lakh fine on eight tenants, says they can't oppose redevelopment of building
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by eight tenants who tried to stall the redevelopment of a dangerously dilapidated building in Malad West. The court fined them ₹ 2 lakh each and reiterated that the property owner has the right to get his building redeveloped and tenants cannot oppose such a demolition. The Krishna Baug building near Malad Railway station was demolished two years ago. (Raju Shinde / HT Photo) The eight tenants had opposed their eviction and the demolition of the 100-year-old Krishna Baug Building No.1 which had been classified by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as a C1 category building, extremely dangerous and unfit for habitation. In 2020 the BMC had issued a notice for the building's immediate demolition. A division-bench of justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata heard two separate pleas, one by the tenants of commercial premises filed in 2023, challenging the BMC's demolition notice and questioning the C1 category, and another by building owners asking for the demolitions to be enforced, instead of being stalled by tenants. Tenants wanted the building to be reclassified from the C1 category to the C2-B category which suggests repairs and renovations. They said that repair work had already been completed, the ground floor of the building was no longer dangerous, and there was no need for evicting them anymore. The court called this as an 'obstructionist approach intended to hinder the landlord's efforts toward redevelopment' and made it illegal for tenants to obstruct demolitions. The court added that the rights of tenants are safeguarded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the BMC Act. The court said that as per section 17 (tenants rights in matters of redevelopment) of the Rent Control Act, and section 499 (regarding repair work) and 354 (removal of structures) of the BMC Act, tenants had the right to oppose the 'reconstruction' of the building, but not the 'redevelopment' of it. In real estate, reconstruction refers to rebuilding a structure without any change, and redevelopment involves demolishing the structure and building a new one with a different design and layout. While asking the tenants to pay the fine, the court said that they had been focused only on extending their stay in the building without taking into consideration other residents of the building.
