Latest news with #SandeepVMarne
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
‘GI proprietors can file suit': HC dismisses PIL by lawyers against ‘unauthorised use' of Kolhapuri chappal by Prada
The Bombay High Court Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by six Pune-based lawyers seeking action against Italian luxury brand Prada for allegedly showcasing footwear resembling Kolhapuri chappal in its spring-summer 2026 menswear collection. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a PIL, which claimed that the Kolhapuri chappal was already protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act and is a 'cultural symbol' of Maharashtra. The court asked the petitioners what their 'locus standi' was, and what the 'public interest' was. It also asked them why the Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) of Maharashtra government, which was made a respondent, could not file the suit. The petitioners, among other prayers, sought direction restraining Prada from commercialising and using the 'toe ring sandals', claiming that the same was originally 'Kolhapuri chappal' and they cannot use the same without any authorisation availed from the registered proprietor or authorised users. The plea also sought compensation to the artisans' community for 'reputational and economic damages'. The bench orally questioned petitioners, 'You want an injunction in PIL? Let (the) affected parties file a suit. Why can't the proprietors of GI file it? You will have to tell us two things. What is your locus standi and public interest? Every person, whosoever is aggrieved by infringement of GI can take action in accordance with law. If you are an aggrieved person, do so. Infringement action cannot be decided in PIL. It will require evidence. It is not that the proprietor of GI cannot come to the court due to social or economic background that you (petitioners) have to espouse their cause. The proprietors can take their own action.' Advocate Ganesh Hingmire for petitioners responded that although they were not owners or proprietors of GI, they had worked for the community to protect their intellectual property rights, which were infringed due to Prada's action. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam for PRADA Group contested the maintainability of the plea, stating that the petitioners lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file it. He argued that the two leather industries or corporations from Maharashtra and Karnataka are jointly registered proprietors of the GI and have the right to file a suit for infringement in case the word 'Kolhapuri' is used in relation to footwear. After perusing submissions, the bench in its order noted that LIDCOM and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) of Karnataka government, were registered proprietors of GI for Kolhapuri Chappals and 'they can bring an action against any unauthorised user for infringement' through a suit under the GI Act, if they believe PRADA unauthorisedly used registered GI. The HC said that such an action cannot be permitted to be agitated through PIL and that both the organisations were established to look after welfare of artisans and 'posses necessary wherewithal' for bringing action against PRADA. Dismissing the PIL, the HC also said adjudication of dispute on claims of similarity between two products and infringement required leading of evidence and same cannot be under through PIL. The HC clarified that the dismissal should not 'come in the way of registered proprietors of GI in Kolhapuri Chappal to initiate action against PRADA in accordance with law, if they so desire.'
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Bombay HC disposes of petitions as PMRDA to withdraw draft development plan
1 2 3 4 5 6 Pune: The Bombay high court on Tuesday disposed of eight petitions as 'infructuous' after the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) filed an affidavit informing it would withdraw its existing draft development plan (DP) in favour of preparing a new one for the next 20 years. The petitions had challenged the draft DP. However, the HC bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep V Marne has posted another petition filed by activists Ujjwal Keskar and Suhas Kulkarni for its next hearing on Aug 25. The said petition challenges the state's decision to appoint PMRDA as the special planning authority for the 23 villages merged within Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) limits. "Keskar and Kulkarni have pleaded that PMC should be the planning authority for the merged villages," their lawyer Ritvik Joshi told TOI. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune On Jan 25, last year, while hearing a petition by a member of the Pune metropolitan planning committee, the HC had directed a stay on PMRDA's draft DP process to enable the authority to take a final decision on the 69,218 suggestions/objections received from people regarding the draft DP. On Aug 2, 2021, the PMRDA had issued an advertisement inviting such suggestions/objections. During a meeting chaired by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis in Mumbai on Feb 12, the PMRDA decided to submit an affidavit before the HC that it was withdrawing the draft DP and would make a new one. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo The PMRDA's affidavit submitted on Tuesday was in this context and the HC took the same on record while disposing of the petitions. PMRDA commissioner Yogesh Mhase told TOI, "We can go ahead with the formal process of cancelling the draft DP. We will send it to the CM." Consultant to PMRDA's development plan cell Vivek Kharwadkar said, "The order allows the development authority to start a new planning process, adhering to legal procedures. PMRDA can go ahead with actions related to planning in the Pune Metropolitan Region (PMR) for the next 20 years," he told TOI. Kharwadkar said preparatory work had already begun after PMRDA adopted a resolution to cancel the draft DP a few months ago. "The fresh exercise poses an opportunity to take into consideration the development carried out during the intervening period. The fresh plan will be based on latest data. The commissioner has emphasised upgradation of data over the last six months," he added. He further said, "Based on latest data, we will have a planning intervention which will take care of immediate demands and overcome the backlog of services. Also, a phased programme shall align with the Maharashtra govt's goals." Officials said the state govt would have to notify cancellation of the DP and the new planning exercise will outline a development roadmap for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, Keskar said, "The PMC had declared its intention under section 23 of the MRTP Act to prepare a draft development plan for the 23 merged areas. Our petition was that the MVA govt in the state had violated the 74th amendment to the Constitution and deprived the PMC of its authority under Schedule 13."
NDTV
4 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
'Not Irrational, Arbitrary': Jetty Near Gateway Of India Cleared By High Court
Mumbai: In a major boost for Mumbai's coastal infrastructure, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a series of public interest litigations challenging the construction of a passenger jetty and terminal near the iconic Gateway of India. Affirming its legality and public necessity, the court gave its nod for the ambitious waterfront project, being carried out by the Maharashtra government and Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB), but also issued directives to ensure that public interest and statutory safeguards remain paramount. The verdict came after months of heated arguments between local residents' associations, environmentalists, and the State. The petitioners, including the Clean Heritage Colaba Residents Association and prominent citizens raised concerns about environmental degradation, flawed site selection, heritage violations, and a lack of public consultation. Project In Public Interest, Not Arbitrary: Court Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne held that the project was a considered policy decision made in public interest and fell within the permissible framework of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 2019 Notification. "The decision to locate the project near Radio Club, despite historical preference for Ferry Wharf, does not render it irrational or arbitrary," the court observed, adding, "Policy decisions cannot be interfered with unless they are manifestly arbitrary, which is not the case here." The court also noted that all relevant regulatory approvals, including CRZ clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), heritage no-objection certificate (NOC) from Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC), and permissions from the Archaeological Department and Mumbai Traffic Police had been duly obtained. Judicial Review Limited In Technical, Policy Matters Emphasising judicial restraint, the court cited past Supreme Court judgments that said courts must defer to expert bodies on infrastructure and environmental matters unless decisions are mala fide or ultra vires. The judges rejected the petitioners' argument that the proposed jetty could not be treated as a "standalone" facility. The project includes a 570-metre-long racquet-shaped jetty with 10 boarding platforms, a terminal with a VIP lounge, parking for 150 cars, cafes, a food court, and an amphitheatre. Despite these facilities, the court accepted the state's argument that these were ancillary to a passenger jetty, thus qualifying it for clearance by the state-level MCZMA rather than the central Ministry of Environment. Concerns Addressed A central plank of the petitioners' argument was a report submitted in 2000 by consulting engineers recommending Ferry Wharf as the most environmentally and operationally suitable site. However, the court found that the MMB was not bound by the two-decade-old report, especially in light of changing urban dynamics and expert inputs from subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies. "Even assuming Ferry Wharf was once preferable, the MMB's departure from it is not unjustified," the court ruled. "There is no obligation to follow prior expert recommendations in perpetuity, especially when alternate expert assessments have validated the current site." Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area? On the argument that the project falls within a "critically vulnerable coastal area," the bench held that the CRZ 2019 notification and subsequent amendments permitted construction of standalone passenger jetties in such zones, subject to safeguards. The petitioners' fear that the development would damage heritage views and marine ecology were also dismissed as speculative. The court also noted the extensive mitigation measures and the fact that similar projects in the vicinity had previously received clearances. Decongestion Benefits The court took note of the public benefit the project seeks to bring. It would "decongest the traffic and tourism load" at the Gateway of India and modernise the long-standing but outdated jetty infrastructure. The judgment emphasised that more than 3.5 million passengers currently use the makeshift jetties annually, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The new terminal aims to provide secure boarding, emergency facilities, accessibility for the disabled, and structured traffic management. Safeguards While dismissing the petitions against the Colaba passenger jetty project, the court also issued a series of directions to ensure that the development does not violate environmental or heritage norms and remains within the regulatory framework. The directions are as follows: Mandatory compliance with approvals: The Mumbai Maritime Board and executing authorities must strictly adhere to all conditions imposed by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee, the Archaeological Department, and the Mumbai Traffic Police. Any violation will be treated as non-compliance with statutory approvals. Ancillary facilities to remain secondary: Facilities such as the amphitheatre, food court, cafe, and VIP lounge proposed as part of the terminal are to remain incidental to the jetty's primary purpose as a passenger terminal. They cannot be expanded or operated in a way that changes the nature of the project into a commercial or recreational venture. Periodic monitoring by MCZMA: The MCZMA is directed to carry out regular monitoring of the project's construction and operational phases to ensure there are no unauthorised modifications or breaches of the Coastal Regulation Zone clearance. Environmental safeguards for marine health: The disposal of sewage, effluents, and grey/black water from terminal facilities and berthed vessels must be managed through approved systems as per the EIA plan. No untreated discharge will be permitted into the sea. Preservation of Gateway of India: The court directed that the jetty project must not obstruct the visibility, physical access, or structural integrity of the Gateway of India. The heritage precinct must remain undisturbed in both construction and operational stages. Construction impact reporting: The project proponents must assess and report the ecological impact of piling and marine construction activities, especially during monsoon and marine breeding seasons. These reports must be submitted to the MCZMA for oversight. No precedent for other CRZ projects: The court clarified that its approval for this project is case-specific. It cannot be cited as a precedent or justification for similar developments in other ecologically sensitive CRZ-I or CRZ-IV areas without a full and independent regulatory assessment.
Time of India
7 days ago
- General
- Time of India
HC junks plea against 9km riverfront development stretch after PMC word on maintaining compensatory plantations
Pune: The Bombay high court on Friday disposed of a PIL against felling and replantation of trees along a 9km Mula-Mutha riverfront development (RFD) stretch, from Sangamwadi bridge to Mundhwa bridge, after the PMC gave an undertaking to maintain the replanted trees properly. The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) submitted that it had planted 7,469 trees till July 11 against phase-wise permissions granted between Oct 14, 2024, and Feb 24, 2025, by the PMC Tree Authority to cut 1,302 trees and replant 1,843 trees. The civic body also said it would ensure that these trees were maintained properly. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne said on July 11, "Needless to state that in case any further proposal is made to the Tree Authority for cutting of trees for the purposes of the project in question, petitioners shall be at liberty to raise an objection, if so advised." You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune Lawyer Abhijit Kulkarni, who represented the PMC, told TOI, "We brought to the court's notice that we have followed all the legal procedures. The PIL was filed in March this year as an afterthought against the permissions granted much earlier, only to stall the ambitious RFD project. It has an environmental clearance from the central govt's environment ministry." "As early as in April this year, we filed an affidavit-in-reply, bringing to the HC's notice that 60% of the project work had been completed as per permissions granted. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Se você sofre com dores no joelho. Leia isso antes que seja deletado Vida Sem Dores Hence, the PIL was an indirect way of blocking the project. This was the fourth attempt to stall the project in the name of environmental concerns," he said. Activist Shalvi Pawar and others had filed the PIL assailing the validity of Resolution No. 1/14/ permission passed by the chairman of the Pune Municipal Corporation's Tree Authority on Oct 14, 2024, on the ground that the same was in violation of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. The petitioners pleaded directions to quash and set aside the approvals given on Dec 6, 2024, Dec 10, 2024 and Dec 11, 2024, by the assistant municipal commissioner, PMC, and to restrain the chairman, Tree Authority, from felling and replantation of trees for the RFD project. The PMC stated in its affidavit on April 27, 2025, "The permission to cut trees for River Rejuvenation Project has been considered by the PMC in phase wise manner. As of date, six permissions have been granted by the Tree Authority to cut a total of 1,302 trees and transplant 1,843 trees along around 9km length of the Mula-Mutha. Out of the said permissions, cutting of 997 trees and transplantation of 859 have been completed, and further work is in progress. Simultaneously, along with the cutting and/or transplantation of trees, the execution of the River Rejuvenation Project is also going on at the site." The PMC lawyer submitted on July 11 that the remaining trees had also been cut /transplanted after April 27, 2025, and the phase concerned of project had been executed.
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Dharavi redevelopment: Bombay HC rejects PIL challenging govt move to use 256 acres of salt pan land for rehabilitation
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a city-based lawyer challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to acquire 255.9 acres of salt pan land in the city for the rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) under the Dharavi Redevelopment Project. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne passed the order on a PIL by lawyer and social activist Sagar Kantilal Deore. The salt pan land parcels, owned by the Centre, are located between Mulund, Kanjurmarg and Bhandup. They were to be handed over to Adani Realty, which is spearheading the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) aimed at creating a rental housing scheme for ineligible slum dwellers in the area. In February 2024, the state Cabinet had authorised a proposal to request the Union government to transfer salt pan land for the Dharavi project on a 99-year lease. Deore, the petitioner, had challenged the validity of state Government Resolutions (GRs) of September 30 and August 7, 2024, for use of the land for rehabilitation of ineligible PAPs and for the affordable housing scheme under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PAY). The PIL also challenged the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry which laid down guidelines for transfer of salt pan lands, based on which the state government took the impugned decision. The petitioner claimed that the state's decision was in contravention of past judgments of the Supreme Court and the high court as the said land is mapped under wetland inventory where constructions are prohibited. He argued that the land is situated in a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area, therefore no rehabilitation can be allowed on it. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, representing the central government, opposed the PIL, stating that it was filed in a 'casual and cavalier manner.' He added that the PAPs were required to be rehabilitated and no law prohibited use of salt pan lands for such a purpose. The court observed that petitioner had not carried out any research and failed to disclose the basis of the information raised in the PIL. It referred to a past Supreme Court judgment which held that good cause can be lost due to petitions filed without proper research. The court further stated that while the salt pan lands were included under wetlands as per a 2012 notification of the central government, in 2024, the Centre changed the policy and permitted transfer of salt pan lands at concessional rate for certain purposes. Therefore, 'it is evident that salt pan lands are excluded from wetlands,' it noted. The court observed that the PIL had not challenged the validity of the change in policy and the petitioner 'failed to demonstrate that salt pan lands cannot be utilised for rehabilitation,' therefore it deserved to be dismissed. 'Needless to state that due consideration will be given to environmental related issues while implementing the project,' the high court added.
