Latest news with #MaheshSonak
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Bombay high court quashes Maharashtra government ban on cinema halls charging online ticket convenience fees
The Bombay high court on Thursday struck down a decade-old Maharashtra government order that barred cinema halls from levying convenience fees on online ticket bookings, ruling that the move infringed upon the fundamental right to carry on business. The high court ruling came in response to petitions filed by PVR Ltd, Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd (which operates BookMyShow), and the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India.(Representational) A division bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the April 4, 2013 order issued by the Revenue Commissioner — and a follow-up order dated March 18, 2014 — lacked statutory backing and violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business. 'The impugned GO transgressed the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) granted to the petitioners by prohibiting theatre owners and others from collecting the convenience fees from their customers,' the bench said. 'If business owners are not permitted to determine various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt.' Notably, the 2013 and 2014 orders had remained in abeyance for nearly a decade, as the high court had stayed their operation through an interim order passed on July 9, 2014. As a result, theatre owners had continued charging the convenience fee while the matter was sub judice. The ruling came in response to petitions filed by PVR Ltd, Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd (which operates BookMyShow), and the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India, challenging the legality of the state's directives. The petitioners contended that online booking was an optional facility that involved investment in technology and infrastructure. Customers, they argued, were free to purchase tickets at the box office if they did not wish to pay the extra fee. The court concurred, stating that the choice ultimately lay with the consumer and that the government could not dictate terms of business without specific legal provisions. 'The government orders... lack statutory basis and therefore cannot justify curtailing the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g),' the court said. The ruling is expected to strengthen the position of private service providers offering online conveniences, particularly in the entertainment and events industry, where such charges have become standard practice.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC to bank: SC ruled Aadhaar not must to open a/c, pay 50k for delay
Mumbai: Bombay high court has directed Yes Bank Ltd to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation to a private company for delay in opening its bank account after Supreme Court's Sept 2018 judgment that Aadhaar is not a mandatory requirement for opening bank accounts. "The bank account was ultimately opened in Jan 2019. Therefore, for a period of three to four months, the petitioner was unable to rent out the premises," said a bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain on June 26. Microfibers Pvt Ltd could not rent out its premises in Nariman Point without a bank account. In Jan 2018, it applied to the bank to open an account. In April 2018, the bank replied that providing an Aadhaar card was mandatory for opening an account. The petitioner pointed out that Supreme Court's interim orders suggested that insisting on an Aadhaar card was not legal or proper. Since the bank did not yield, the petition was filed in HC. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai At a June 2018 hearing, the bank told HC that following Supreme Court's Sept 26, 2018, judgment, it was not insisting upon an Aadhaar card for opening an account, and that it would open the petitioner's account accordingly. On June 26, the petitioner's advocate, Niyam Bhasin, confirmed that the account was opened in Jan 2019. He said in Nov 2018, HC admitted the petition for a final hearing on the prayer for Rs 10 lakh in damages. The judges noted that the bank "had not bothered to file its reply". Bhasin said for a year, from Jan 2018-Jan 2019, the premises could not be rented out. The founder-director died and is survived by his 84-year-old wife and his daughter. Bhasin said rent in the area in 2018 was in the range of Rs 1.5 lakh per month. The bench noted that in April 2018, when the bank insisted on an Aadhaar card, Supreme Court's interim orders were in operation. However, in Sept 2018, the apex court struck down the requirement of an Aadhaar card for opening bank accounts. "Therefore, from Sept 26, 2018, onwards, there was no impediment to the respondent-bank opening the account without insisting on an Aadhaar card," it added. It, however, said the claim for Rs 10 lakh compensation is "exaggerated and cannot be granted". Without relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy and taking into consideration the circumstances cumulatively, the judges directed the bank to pay Rs 50,000 within eight weeks. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Hindustan Times
28-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC terms Pune man's arrest illegal over 48-hour delay in court production
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) has declared the arrest of a 58-year-old Pune resident illegal after finding that he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of being apprehended — a violation of both constitutional and statutory safeguards. HC terms Pune man's arrest illegal over 48-hour delay in court production A division bench of justice Mahesh Sonak and justice Valmiki Menezes ruled on Friday that Hanumant Nazirkar's arrest, though formally recorded much later, effectively began at 1pm on October 25, 2024, when Baramati police picked him up from Pune's Shivajinagar metro station. Nazirkar and his wife had been booked by the Baramati Taluka police in connection with a March 3, 2023 complaint accusing them and others of cheating the complainant of ₹ 3.37 crore. His plea for anticipatory bail had been earlier rejected. While police formally recorded his arrest only at 9pm on October 26, he was produced before a magistrate around 12.20pm on October 27 — nearly 48 hours after being apprehended. Nazirkar moved the high court challenging the legality of this delay, citing Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both of which require a person taken into custody to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours. The government's counsel argued that Nazirkar was not under arrest during this period, claiming he was being medically evaluated — first referred from Baramati to Sassoon Hospital in Pune, but ultimately admitted to a private hospital in Baramati shortly after midnight and discharged only on the evening of October 27. They pointed out that Nazirkar's son was with him and that he had remained in touch with his family over the phone. The court, however, rejected this line of defence. 'The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the person and not with the time of arrest recorded by the arresting officer,' the bench said. 'The test is whether a person has been deprived of their liberty to go where they please.' The judges observed that once Nazirkar was apprehended by police, his liberty was curtailed — making it an arrest in the eyes of the law. They held that relying on the 'pre-arrest medical examination' argument to bypass the 24-hour rule would defeat the purpose of constitutional protection and could encourage abuse of power. 'There is no legal provision that allows exclusion of time for medical examinations prior to arrest. Such police conduct could lead to unscrupulous tendencies,' the court noted, terming the arrest illegal. Nazirkar was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 1 lakh and one or more sureties in the same amount.
