Latest news with #HighCourtofBombay
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
UOI notifies appointment of three new judges to SC; strength rises to 34
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday notified the elevation of three new judges to the Supreme Court following the President's assent to the collegium's recommendations. The three new judges who are elevated to the top court are; Justices V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, (ii) Vijay Bishnoi, Chief Justice, High Court of Gauhati and (iii) A.S. Chandurkar, Judge, High Court of Bombay. These three new judges are expected to be sworn in by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Friday morning, as per sources. With the elevation of these three new judges in the top court, the actual number of judges rises to 34, which is also the sanctioned capacity of the top court. Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Ram Meghwal, talking to X (Formerly known as Twitter), shared the news. "In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices (i) N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, (ii) Vijay Bishnoi, Chief Justice, High Court of Gauhati and (iii) A.S. Chandurkar, Judge, High Court of Bombay as Judges of the Supreme Court of India," Meghwal posted.
Indian Express
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Ex-Goa CM Alemao's plea to stop release of film starring Nawazuddin rejected by Bombay HC
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed an appeal by former Goa chief minister Churchill Alemao for an injunction to restrain the release of the film 'Costao'. The 'biographical' film – which released Thursday on an OTT service, stars actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui and is based on the life of a retired customs officer Costao Fernandes, who was posted in Goa in the 1990s. Churchill had filed a civil defamation suit before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao last year seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the production companies and director of the film from carrying on any further production of the movie and from releasing it in theatres or OTT platform or any other source in India or abroad. The veteran politician sought Rs 100 crore in damages or compensation claiming that the film was 'solely based on the narrative given by Costao Fernandes, in complete ignorance of various judicial proceedings that were initiated in respect of the incident, and which are contained in various judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court'. In 1991, Costao Fernandes, an intelligence officer attached to the Customs House at Mormugao in South Goa, claimed to have received credible information that the Alemao brothers and their associates were planning to smuggle gold into the country. Fernandes had chased and intercepted a car allegedly driven by Churchill's brother Alvernaz and in the ensuing scuffle and knife-fight, Alvernaz was grievously hurt and later succumbed to his injuries. In the petition, Churchill, representing the entire Alemao family consisting of his brothers – Joaquim, the late Alvernaz and the late Ciabro and their spouses and children – said the movie, if allowed to be produced and released, would portray him and his family as a 'villain' and would allow the producers to make commercial gain at the cost of his reputation and political career and of his family members. His counsel submitted 'that the incident being well-known, in the absence of also including the findings exonerating the plaintiff [Churchill] of the customs and criminal case, the public would carry an impression that the plaintiff and his family were smugglers'. In their reply, the respondents said that the movie does not purport to be a true story and is a fictional account in which the real-life incident 'may have inspired the film'. The respondents said that the film is merely a narrative based on Costao's version of events, 'with creative liberties of fictionalization and dramatization.' The lower court had rejected the application for temporary injunction, observing that the plaintiff sought an order of restraint on the assumption that the film would be defamatory of the plaintiff and of his deceased brother. View this post on Instagram A post shared by ZEE5 (@zee5) In an order Wednesday – a day before the movie was released — the HC bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes, said the findings of the trial court do not call for any interference in appeal. The High Court said 'the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and spelt out in what manner his reputation has been affected, based upon news articles which are, not proved to be at the behest and on information given by the defendants. The film is yet to be released and the plaintiff is basing his claim on a conjecture that the film would contain defamatory material.' '…At least at this stage, before the release of the film, the defendants have set out a case that the film is a work of fiction, dramatizing an incident which is described in records of various courts. The defendants also claim that the film is based on inspiration derived from the facts stated in court records and from the version of the incident stated by Costao. The claim is that the film is a work purely of fiction and dramatizing the incident to give it a certain entertainment value for viewers. There are enough of safeguards also placed in the form of a disclaimer. Nothing is shown on record to draw any likeness of any character in the film, which is not yet released, or for the plaintiff to believe from any material that the character has a likeness similar to the plaintiff or any members of his family,' the court said.
India Today
29-04-2025
- India Today
Bombay High Court upholds life sentences of 2 men in businessman murder case
The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal and upheld the life sentences of two men from Uttar Pradesh's Pratapgad and Gorakhpur for killing a businessperson in the Ghatkopar area of Mumbai on November 5, Kumar alias Chhotelal Yadav, 27, and Nagendra Kumar alias Monu Lalkrishor Kanojiya, 25, were arrested in Lucknow and Gorakhpur, respectively, for killing Shankar Thakkar, a businessperson engaged in an embroidery visited his workshop on the fateful day of November 5, 2011, and did not return. His phone was unreachable and when his family reached the workshop the next day, the shop was locked, but it was only two days later that a foul smell coming from the shop alerted the family members. The police broke open the lock, after which Thakkar's body was found lying dead in a pool of blood on his cabin floor with a computer wire tied around his neck and some oozes of blood on stained probe revealed that a gold chain, ring, cash and the mobile phone of the deceased were Call Data Record (CDR) and International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers of the mobile phones of the deceased revealed that the same was being used by Kanojiya. The broken gold chain of the deceased was seized from a jewellery shop and blood-stained clothes worn by the accused were also seized after the accused revealed the details through trial was conducted by the Mumbai Sessions Court, where the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence including two accused were seen sipping tea with Thakkar. However, the statement of an employee of a nearby hotel who served tea to those in the workshop at around 4 pm was the key evidence. Also, the statement of a printing press owner who had seen the accused close the shutter of the workshop and lock it around 5 pm, was crucial in the 2015, a trial court sentenced the duo to life imprisonment for they filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr Neela Additional Government Pleader in the case, SS Kaushik, took the court through the testimonies of 14 witnesses and submitted that the prosecution had established all incriminating evidence against the appellants by reliable and cogent submitted, "The circumstances so proved by the prosecution form a chain of events so complete that there can be no other hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants."The bench opined that the sessions court judgment "is a well-reasoned and legally sound decision".advertisementIt further stated, "The observations of the trial court pertaining to the last seen theory and the reliability of the statements of the witnesses examined, the corroborated evidence etc. are compelling and do not warrant any interference."The appeal against the trial court's order of life sentence to the two accused was then dismissed.
The Print
29-04-2025
- Business
- The Print
Goa didn't choose to become a casino city—now it's a state-sponsored moral gamble
A few days ago, a PIL was filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, contending that the Captain of Ports and the North Goa District Magistrate collaborated to hand over this 627-square-metre public space to M/s Golden Peace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for the exclusive benefit of their casino patrons. The area, originally upgraded to enhance state revenue and improve traffic management in the capital, was formally designated as a pay parking zone for public use in 2017. What unfolds nightly in Goa's capital is a microcosm of the state's uneasy relationship with its casino industry. And the only people who feel unwelcome at this unwarranted party are the residents of this tiny city, trapped in a geography transformed against their will, victims of a state-sanctioned gamble. The latest flashpoint in this ongoing struggle? A public parking facility near the Ferry Wharf – built with Rs 20-22 crore of taxpayer funds – allegedly transferred to a casino operator without transparency or due process. Never has a site of battle glittered as much as Panjim's Mandovi riverfront. The promenade is busiest past midnight, when drunk, depleted patrons filter out of the 'offshore' casino vessels anchored in the middle of the river, like beached whales wrapped in fairy lights. Will they end up in a spontaneous karaoke competition, a full-blown argument, or simply continue their 'car-o-bar' from their docked taxis? Who knows — the night is still young, and Goa a permissive mistress for the holidaying, honeymooning lot. But the vital community space was quietly repurposed for private commercial gain through de-notification orders issued in December 2023 and March 2024, neither of which were publicised nor published in the Official Gazette. The petition seeks the nullification of these orders, restoration of public access, removal of structures erected by the casino, and accountability for officials involved in what the PIL characterises as an illegal transfer of public land. This alleged misuse of public land represents one more win for the other side in a city sighing under the weight of unabated tourism. For Panjim residents like Dr Luis Dias, who runs the music education charity Child's Play India Foundation, casino operations constitute a daily violation of dignity and urban citizenship. 'For those of us who live on the waterfront, we have every possible problem from drunk driving, noise pollution, actual litter, and parking issues. I have never seen Panjim under such mismanagement,' he explained. Dias said they've had to call the police several times during the wee hours, but the burden of proof consistently falls on harassed citizens rather than disruptive visitors – notorious for jumping over the low boundary walls of old houses and peering into windows. Traditions criminalised The unspoken social contract that once allowed residents to exist peacefully in their city has been shredded over the last few years. This reorganisation has altered the psychology of public life in Panjim. 'It's very difficult to have fun the old-fashioned way, like going for a walk in the evening,' Dias said, describing an encounter with a drug user during a stroll. When residents attempt to reclaim their spaces through formal channels, they find themselves abandoned. When they complain about a lack of respect from tourists, they are mocked. 'We have had to just carry on living,' he said. 'For the government, the visitor and the tourist are much more important. The rest of us are meant to just vote and then shut up.' Beyond the daily inconveniences of noisy nights and traffic snarls lies a fundamental disconnect between policy and practice. When Goa amended its Public Gambling Act in 1992, it cracked open a narrow door with electronic gaming machines in five-star hotels. By the late nineties, that exception expanded to include 'table games and gaming on board in vessels offshore.' The loosely defined term 'offshore' once bore the promise that these floating casinos would operate far from residential areas, perhaps 5-10 nautical miles out to sea. But a quarter-century later, that promise lies shipwrecked in the Mandovi, where massive vessels now dominate Panjim's landscape: a disjointed Las Vegas-style strip within swimming distance of shore. Meanwhile, the state's relationship with gambling remains contradictory. In 2020, responding to years of local activism, the government implemented a ban preventing Goan residents from entering casinos — making gambling morally acceptable for tourists but not for locals. Another example of this selective morality is the recently instituted ban on Housie games, a cherished tradition at parish events and football matches. For many Goans, watching their community traditions criminalised while commercial casinos thrive — thanks to multiple extensions — reveals the government's true priorities. Beyond the economic prosperity The economic defence of casinos has always stood on two pillars: revenue generation and employment creation. Casinos have been very profitable and have filled up the state's coffers. According to reports, in 2023-24 the Goa government earned Rs 606 crore from the industry, marking a 70 per cent jump over the previous year. Can a state really afford to reject this industry, regardless of its moral costs? But social activist Sabina Martins, convener of Aam Aurat Admi Against Gambling (AAAG), challenges these claims. According to her, the promised prosperity masks a darker reality that activists have witnessed firsthand. 'When casinos started, they didn't have business, so they relied on locals to provide business,' she said. Her organisation has documented numerous cases of addiction, financial ruin, and family destruction – young men taking loans or leaving education to go to casinos. 'Women have equal property rights in Goa,' she told me, 'but I have seen some of their husbands gambling it all away by taking power of attorney under duress.' Martins, who has been involved with women's activism for a long time, said that the industry has been marketed as a lifestyle and a high-end status symbol for locals. That has directly contributed to gambling addictions, which were previously present but not at the scale they now experience. Martins also suggested that the rise of casinos as an economic policy has led to visitors associating Goa with a den of vices. 'The tentacles of casinos have penetrated the social, political, and economic sectors. It's like when the East India Company or the Portuguese came to India, and we lost our freedoms. The same thing is happening with casinos,' she said. Not everyone opposes casinos on purely moral grounds. Jack Sukhija, a citizen of Panjim, acknowledges overt and indirect economic benefits: Casinos bring visitors who fill hotels and restaurants, boost rental demand, and fuel consumption. His critique focuses instead on the industry's current form and location. 'My problem is, why run it in the worst possible way? There is no real advantage to running 'offshore' casinos, so why have this farce at all?' he asked. Sukhija argued that the state could continue to reap the same economic benefits by operating casinos within existing settings like five-star hotels. Sukhija wants the government to focus on channeling the profits from the industry back into the city – by appointing a Gaming Commissioner, regulating the industry, and preserving the riverfront. 'All over the world, cities that are by the water use it to their advantage. This [visual pollution] is a total loss for Panjim,' he said. Now, it's a matter of 'pride' Eventually, it all boils down to public consent — and who the casinos eventually serve. Patricia Pinto, former councillor of the Corporation of the City of Panjim, recalls deliberations from the 1990s when citizens envisioned their capital's future. 'In 1996, I attended a seminar where we searched for an identity for Panjim,' she recounted. 'We discussed how Panjim should develop: as a seat of power? A walking city? A heritage city? Nowhere did we discuss whether it should become a casino city.' This insight demolishes the myth that casino development represented some organic evolution of Goa's character – instead, it was imposed from above, bypassing community vision. In Campal, Pinto said, there is talk of evicting fishermen, accused of polluting the river, even as a report by NIO has shown otherwise. Now, Panjim stands alienated from itself, where even basic institutions carry the branding of private gambling operators. 'Even police barricades bear the names of Casino Pride and Majestic Pride,' Pinto said. 'I want to ask, 'Where is our police pride?'' Whether it's fishermen or public parking, this debate is about who ultimately has the right to Goa's commons – whose activities deserve legitimisation and who is considered a criminal. In the inexorable march toward progress, Goa must reckon with who gets to have a meaningful vote in shaping the place they call home. This article is part of the Goa Life series, which explores the new and the old of Goan culture. Karanjeet Kaur is a journalist, former editor of Arré, and a partner at TWO Design. She tweets @Kaju_Katri. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant) FAQs | Understanding Panjim's casino conflict As Panjim residents push back against the casino industry's growing footprint, here are answers to some key questions about the controversy. 1. Why are Panjim residents opposing casinos? Panjim residents oppose the casino industry because it has transformed their city's public spaces, created problems like noise, traffic, and drunk driving, and compromised their sense of safety and community. Many feel that casinos were imposed without public consent and that the government's priorities now favour tourists and casino operators over local citizens. 2. How much revenue do Goa's casinos generate? In the financial year 2023-24, Goa's casinos generated around Rs 606 crore for the state government — a 70 percent increase from the previous year. While casinos are defended as important sources of revenue and employment, activists argue that the social and urban costs outweigh the economic benefits. 3. What is the controversy around public parking near Mandovi riverfront? A recent controversy erupted when a public parking area near the Ferry Wharf in Panjim, built with taxpayer money, was allegedly handed over to a casino operator without transparency or public consultation. A PIL filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenges this transfer, arguing that it represents illegal privatisation of public land for casino patrons' exclusive use.
