Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 25 - December 01, 2024

Nominal Index:

Mihir Shah vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 611

High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion vs. Mayur Gulabrao Patil & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 612

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 613

Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 614

SS vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 615

Gulshan Townplanners LLP v. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 616

G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm vs. Minakshi Balasao Magdum And Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 617

Judgments/Final Orders:

Worli Hit-n-Run Case: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Declaration That Arrest Was Illegal

Case title: Mihir Shah vs. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 611

In a setback for the accused in the infamous Worli Hit-n-Run Case, the Bombay High Court today dismissed the petitions filed by prime accused Mihir Shah and his driver Rajrishi Bindawat, both challenging their arrests on the basis that they weren't served with the "grounds of arrest" in written format, as mandated by the Supreme Court.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the pleas.

Bombay High Court Takes Cognizance Of Civic Officer, Advocate Abusing And Assaulting Court Peon, However Accepts Their "Unconditional Apologies"

Case title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion vs. Mayur Gulabrao Patil & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 612

The Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognizance of an "unfortunate incident" which took place in the Court premises, wherein an advocate and an official of the Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) abused a court peon in a filthy language after they were asked to maintain silence.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata was disturbed to take note of the incident and therefore, asked its peon Atul Tayade to lodge a criminal case against advocate Dinesh Kadam and NMC's Deputy Municipal Commissioner Mayur Patil, for abusing him and threatening to get him removed from his job.

Initiating Proceedings For Recovery Of Duty Under Customs Act After 'Inordinate Delay' Of 26 Yrs Is Unreasonable: Bombay High Court

Case title: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of India & ors. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 613

While quashing a notice issued under the Customs Act, the Bombay High Court noted that the proceedings were initiated for recovery of duty foregone after a delay of 26 years, adding that such a prolonged delay in initiating the proceedings cannot be considered 'reasonable'.

In doing so a division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain said that even on a reading of the Act, a reasonable period would certainly not be 26 years even in a case where a bond has been executed. The court further said that "not even an attempt" was made by the custom authorities to "explain this inordinate delay"

Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 614

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case.

Delivering Child In Jail Will Certainly Impact Both Mother And Child: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Pregnant Prisoner

Case Title: SS vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 615

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (November 27) granted six months bail to a pregnant prisoner for her delivery, observing that delivering the child in the jail atmosphere would certainly impact not only the mother but also the child.

Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke granted bail to a woman booked under the stringent Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

S.9 Application Not Appropriate For Relief Against Non-Signatory When There Is No Dispute Between Parties To Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay HC

Case Title: Gulshan Townplanners LLP v. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 616

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between.

Bombay High Court Fines Licensee Rs 5 Lakh For 'Harassing Landowners' Regarding Compensation For Land Acquired For Kohlapur Airport

Case title: G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm vs. Minakshi Balasao Magdum And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 617

The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on a litigant for claiming untenable tenancy rights in a land, despite being a mere licensee.

In doing so the court found litigant's plea to be abuse of the process of law, intended to harass the landowners. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethnasaid that the petitioner, without having a semblance of a right pertaining to the ownership of land of three respondents, which was acquired for Kohlapur airport had not "left a single stone unturned to create obstacles" so that the three respondents are harassed and deprived of the compensation amount.

Other orders/Observations:

Bombay High Court Issues Interim Injunction Against 'DESIMOCHI' Over Trademark Infringement Of Metro Footwear's 'MOCHI'

The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the popular footwear brand Metro Brands Limited, against trademark infringement of its 'MOCHI' marks.

Justice R.I. Chagla noted that as the defendant's mark contains the entirety of Metro's 'MOCHI' mark, it would be estopped from contending that Metro's mark is generic, descriptive or common to the trade.