Know Thy Judge| Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala – 52nd Chief Justice of Madras High Court

Early Life and Education

Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala was born on 24-05-1962, into a family of lawyers. He completed his schooling from Holy Cross Convent School and graduated in Commerce from Saraswati Bhuvan Education Society (SBES) College of Arts and Commerce, Aurangabad. Thereafter, he completed his LL. B from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.¹

Did You know: Justice S.V. Gangapurwala secured 3rd position in order of merit in LL.B Examination².

Advocacy

Soon after completing his LL. B, Justice S.V. Gangapurwala enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and started his practice in year 1985 at Auragabad under the guidance of Late Advocate S.N. Loya. He also served as a counsel to several corporate entities including the Central Bank of India, the Bombay Mercantile Corporative Bank, Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. He also represented the Government before Justice Mane Commission, which enquired into lathi charge and use of force by Police.³ He also practiced as an Advocate Debt Recovery Tribunal. Additionally, he served as served as a lecturer in M.P Law College since 1991 until his elevation as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on 13-03-2010.⁴

From Advocacy to Judgeship

Justice S.V. Gangapurwala was elevated as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2010. Upon elevation of the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice Dipankar Datta to the Supreme Court in December 2022, Justice SV Gangapurwala was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court⁵.

The Supreme Court Collegium on 19-04-2023, recommended appointment of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.⁶ On 26-05-2023, President Droupadi Murmu appointed him as Chief Justice of Madras High Court.⁷

Did You Know: With the appointment of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala, Madras High Court got a Chief Justice after a long period of eight months.⁸

Notable Judgments

Vijay v. Godavari Garments Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 940,

Justice B.R. Gavai and S.V. Gangapurwala* laid down that a person shall not be removed from his position on grounds of unreasonableness and without affording due opportunity. Rule 8 sub-clause 20 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, mandates enquiry authority to question delinquent on circumstances appearing against him in evidence so that delinquent would get opportunity to explain such circumstances. Further, the Wednesbury Principle of unreasonableness was substituted by Doctrine of Proportionality, hence the punishment of removal from service was found too disproportionate and did not satisfy the test of proportionality.

Anubha Srivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1042,

In a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) seeking relaxation in Joint Entrance Examination (‘JEE Main’) 2023 eligibility criteria of class 12 qualifying marks being 65% for SC/ST and 75% for others, the Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala, ACJ and Sandeep V. Marne, J. refused to interfere with the policy decision of the government regarding methodology of conduct of JEE Main 2023 and the admission process. Read More

Did You Know: Justice S.V. Gangapurwala has an avid interest in Lawn Tennis and was a National Level player of the game. Moreover, Justice Gangapurwala represented his University six times and captained it twice in All India University Tournament. He also played basketball at State level.⁹

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 408,

In a petition filed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, challenging the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) directing deletion of registered trademark ‘OFLOMAC’ registered by Sun Pharmaceuticals for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling in class-5 under the provisions of Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a division bench of S.V. Gangapurwala, ACJ., and Madhav J Jamdar, J., held that there is no patent error in the impugned decision and is in the interest of the general public as the mark concerns medicinal / pharmaceutical product. It is because confusion in the case of a non-medicinal or a non-pharmaceutical product may only cause economic loss to the person, but on the other hand, confusion in terms of medicinal or pharmaceutical products may have a disastrous effect on health. Read More

All India Service Engineers Assn. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 596,

The petitions were filed by All India Service Engineers Association, Aviation Industry Employees Guild, and Air Corporation Employees Union (‘Petitioner Unions) representing employees working in Air India Limited (AIL), Air India Engineering Services Limited, and Air India Airport Services Ltd (Respondent Companies) challenging the order dated 12-10-2022 wherein the Central Government declined to make a reference to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inter alia holding that housing is not a term of employment and that therefore the demand cannot be considered as an industrial dispute. A Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala, ACJ., and Sandeep V Marne, J., did not interfere with the impugned order as the grievance regarding the alleged right to occupy the premises will be dependent on the terms and conditions of leave and license agreements and thus, open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Read More

Axis Trustee Services Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 180

In a petition filed challenging the communication dated 14-03-2020 under which the Administrator of the Yes Bank Ltd., informed the (Bombay Stock Exchange) BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange, of the decision to write off the Additional Tier 1 Debenture bonds, a division bench of S.V Gangapurwala* ACJ. and S M Modak, JJ., set aside the decision taken by the administrator appointed by the Reserve Bank of India, to write off Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) bonds because as per Clause 57 of the Information Memorandum along with the Final Reconstruction Scheme, the administrator could not have exercised his powers to write down bonds after reconstitution of the bank. Read More

Naredco West Foundation v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 239

In a petition filed by the Maharashtra chapter of the National Real Estate Development Council (NAREDCO) being aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent 2-State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in repeatedly deferring the proposals of members of Petitioner 1-Association for environmental clearance on the ground of receipt of the email dated 23-09-2022 from Registrar of National Green Tribunal (‘the NGT’) inviting the attention of SEIAA to the judgment and order dated 13-09-2022 passed by the NGT in Anil Tharthare v. State of Maharashtra¹⁰, a division bench of S.V Gangapurwala ACJ. and Sandeep V Marne, J., directed that the judgment and order dated 13-09-2022 by National Green Tribunal shall not be an impediment for SIEAA to decide various proposals submitted by members of Association (Petitioner 1) for grant of environmental clearances on its own merits. Read More

Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4236

In a petition filed by the son challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai Suburban District, Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal directing them to pay Rs. 25,000/- monthly maintenance allowance to respondent 3-mother from August 2022 and vacate and hand over the possession of the said flat to Mother, a Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and R.N. Laddha, JJ., upheld the eviction order and modified the order regarding the maintenance amount. The modified order mentioned the maintenance to be paid at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Read More

Swapnil Prakash Parab v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2338

In a case filed by Swapnil Prakash Parab (‘petitioner’) challenging rejection to the representation made before Bhabha Atomic Research Centre/BARC on the orders of the Supreme Court. The case relates to non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case in the candidate declaration form, a Division Bench of R N Laddha and S V Gangapurwala, JJ., upheld the rejection by respondent 2 in view of the sensitive nature of work conducted in BARC, a candidate interested in joining such a sensitive institution is expected to have a flawless character and integrity without blemishes. An individual with criminal antecedents will not fit in this category and hiding the same, questions his honesty and integrity that are the inherent requirements in public employment. Read More

Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2232

In a case filed by a student (‘petitioner’) seeking directions to State (‘respondent’) to conduct the Maharashtra Public Service Commission examination in English as well as Marathi language, a Division bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and R.N. Laddha, JJ. directed the respondents to ensure that the next examination to be held for Public Prosecutors must be conducted in English as well as Marathi language in line with the implementation of the policy of State Government of promoting the language of State i.e. Marathi. Read More

Radhika J. Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 856

The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi, JJ., expressed that only because 83% of the property for the project is acquired, it would be egregious not to apply the provision of the statute for determination of compensation. Read More

Ashruba Namdeo Kharmate v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 840

Stating that in the democratic setup, the will of the majority is the rule, the Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., held that if the directly elected Sarpanch fails to call the meetings of the Panchayat or acts in a manner rendering the functioning of the Panchayat at a standstill, the member of the Panchayat would certainly get a right to move a motion of no confidence. Read More

Balasaheb v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 727

The Division Bench of P.V Hardas and S.V. Gangapurwala JJ., expounded the ratio that Courts should take into consideration the principle of equitable estoppel in order to supplement the ends of Justice in addition to the rigid rules of law, Ordinance and other Statues and held that Maharashtra Animals and Fisheries Science University would not have any authority to refrain the petitioners from appearing for final viva-voce examination when allowed to appear for the examination after 10 years and allowed to complete his internship.

Krishna v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3036

The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ., held that so long as the proceedings under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were pending and had not concluded, the Registrar could have exercised the powers to withdraw the powers given to the authorised Officer but after the authorised Officer had concluded the proceedings under Section 88 and passed an order exonerating the petitioners, the Registrar thereafter is denuded of his power and could not have exercised said power again.

Priya Kedar Gokhale v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11645

The Division Bench of S.V Gangapurwala and Madhav J. Jamdar JJ., read down the rule of Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2015 to provide relaxation or exemption for those candidates who are born in Maharashtra and whose parents are domicile of Maharashtra but due to circumstances such as the parents are in Service of the Government and Serving the Nation in Defence Force and due to Service conditions is deployed in various parts of the country could not complete their HSC or SCC from State of Maharashtra, the respondents shall consider such cases for admission through Maharashtra State quota.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8835

In an appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whereby the Tribunal set aside the demand of service tax and penalty, the Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and A.I.S Cheema JJ., held that sub-Section 2 of Section 35L of the Act lays down that for the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or exercisability of goods for the purpose of assessment. Furthermore, it was said that it would be clear that the issue would come within the scope of the terminology ‘rate of the duty’ for the purpose of assessment, therefore, appeal under Section 35G would not be maintainable.