Nominal Index [Citation 223 - 240]Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 223Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 224Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 225Sayli B Parkhi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 226M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Goa 2023...
Nominal Index [Citation 223 - 240]
Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
Sayli B Parkhi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
Anubha Shrivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
L & T Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Gurumahima Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. M/s Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Imran Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Amol Ramesh Bole and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
Palmview Investments Overseas Limited v. Ravi Arya 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
MV Golden Pride v. GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Alice D’souza v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
Buddheshwar S/o Babulal Lilhare v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
XYZ v. ABC 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court regularized the admissions of students in various health science institutes as a one-time measure. The Admission Regulation Authority (ARA) had cancelled their admissions under reserved categories as they did not have validity certificates at the time of admission.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh sitting at Aurangabad also imposed costs on the institutes for admitting the students against the rules and not communicating ARA’s decision to the students.
Case Title: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained FM radio stations - Radio Tadka and Radio City from broadcasting songs authored by the members of Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) without paying royalties to the authors.
Justice Manish Pitale held that prima facie, the original authors (authors, composers, publishers etc.) of the literary or musical works used in films and sound recordings are entitled to royalties equal to the producer for utilization of their works.
The court said that prima facie, due to a 2012 amendment in the Copyright Act, the original authors, who were earlier not entitled to royalty once their work became part of a film, can now claim royalty for any use of their work, except screening in a cinema hall in a movie. The amendment has fundamentally changed the manner in which the rights of authors of original works have to be treated, the court added.
Case Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
The Bombay High Court permitted actor Arjun Rampal to belatedly avail of the Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 to settle service tax dues for the year 2016-2017.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja observed that Rampal couldn’t be denied benefits of the scheme due to a technical glitch for no fault of his.
Therefore, the court directed authorities to allow Rampal to make the challan payment of Rs. 2.74 lakhs under the SVLDR, settle his tax dues of over Rs. 9.16 lakhs and to issue the necessary discharge certificate under the scheme.
Eating House License Doesn’t Automatically Include License To Serve Hookah: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sayli B Parkhi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
The Bombay High Court held that an Eating House Licence granted to a restaurateur doesn’t deem to include a permit to serve ‘Hookah’ or ‘Herbal Hookah’ under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
Holding otherwise would lead to “absolute nuisance” especially since neither an eating house nor the civic body can control the ingredients of hookah once it is served to the customer, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and RN Laddha said.
Bombay High Court Upholds The Validity Of Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000
Case Title: M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Goa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak & Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes relied on the decision of the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Limited and another vs. State of Haryana and ors. which upheld the constitutional validity of entry taxes imposed by states on goods coming in from other states.
Case Title: Anubha Shrivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court refused to order relaxation of minimum 75 percent 12th standard board score eligibility criterion for admission to IITs, NITs, IIITs, and CFTIs/GFTIs through JEE Main and JEE Advance examinations.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne held –
"The students, whose cause petitioner is allegedly espousing, neither have any vested right nor legitimate expectation to claim relaxation in the eligibility criteria for admissions to NITs, IITs and CFITs during the current year. Since grant of relaxation is a policy decision, the same can be taken by the Government of India in appropriate circumstances.”
The court said that the eligibility criteria was relaxed in previous three years due to special circumstances. Just because relaxation was granted in the previous three years due to COVID, the students are not entitled to continue to claim relaxation indefinitely, the court said. The court did not find the eligibility condition to be arbitrary in any manner.
Case Title: L & T Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Pendency of secured creditors’ applications for possession of secured assets is bad for financial health of the country, the Bombay High Court held.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja issued several directions to streamline the process of disposal of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and District Magistrates.
Case Title: Gurumahima Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. M/s Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court ruled that mere signing of the arbitral award at a place cannot be the determinative factor for ascertaining the place of arbitration. It added that if there is no agreement between the parties regarding the place of arbitration and the arbitrator has not determined the place of arbitration, the overall circumstances of the case would have to be taken into consideration to reach a conclusion regarding the same.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale was dealing with a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which was disputed on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same. The court observed that there was a lack of material to show agreement between the parties with respect to the place of arbitration, as contemplated under Section 20(1) of the A&C Act. Further, in such a situation, the arbitrator could have determined the place of arbitration under Section 20(2) of the A&C Act, which he had failed to do so.
POCSO Act Not Meant To Punish Minors In Romantic Relationships: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Imran Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
The Protection of Children of From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was enacted to protect minors from sexual assault, not to punish minors in romantic or consensual relationship and brand them as criminals, the Bombay High Court said.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed thus and granted bail to a 22-year-old accused of kidnapping and rape of a minor under sections 363, 376 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court upheld a single judge’s order and refused to grant interim relief to the former CEO and MD of ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar in her suit seeking specific performance of her retirement benefits and other entitlements.
The court refused to stay the ICICI bank’s email dated January 30, 2019, terminating her employment and allowing her unexercised vested stock of 1,25,42,750 to lapse.
A division bench of Justices KR Shriram and Rajesh Patil observed “reliefs sought by appellant (Kochhar) are in the nature of final reliefs and grant of such reliefs would amount to decreeing appellant’s suit at the interim stage.”
Case Title: Amol Ramesh Bole and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
The Maharashtra Government agreed to withdraw prohibitory orders against eight villagers from Ratnagiri, who were leading protests against the multi-billion project of Ratnagiri Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.
The orders passed under section 144(2) of the CrPC barred them from entering their hometown Rajapur Taluka for a month from April 21 – May 31, 2023 and from publishing adverse posts on social media which may cause confusion or incite a law-and-order situation in the area.
After hearing the petitioners, the Bombay High Court questioned how such orders could be passed and asked the state government’s lawyer to take appropriate instruction.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh subsequently recorded the state government’s statement and disposed of the plea filed by the eight villagers to quash the orders.
Yes Bank-DHFL Loan Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea By Rana Kapoor
Case Title: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court denied bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor in the Yes Bank-DHFL loan fraud case.
Justice PD Naik reasoned that Kapoor is facing serious allegation of laundering public money, and refused bail on ground of long incarceration.
Though the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court have granted bail on the ground of long incarceration, gravity of accusations cannot be brushed aside, the court said.
The court further noted that Kapoor is involved in seven other similar cases. Allegedly, Rs. 378 Crores out of proceeds of crime of Rs. 600 Crores have been invested overseas. Thus, the court held that Kapoor is not entitled to bail considering his alleged role and magnitude of the crime.
Case Title: Palmview Investments Overseas Limited v. Ravi Arya
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court held that any defect in the board resolution authorizing a person to initiate arbitration is only a procedural and a curable defect, thus, it cannot be a ground for the rejection of the claims and termination of the arbitral proceedings.
The bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Rajesh S. Patil held that requirement of a board resolution authorizing a person to take legal action on behalf of a company is a procedural requirement and any defect in such a resolution would only be a procedural irregularity and thus it cannot be allowed to defeat a substantive right of a party.
The Court held that in view of Section 19 of the Act, an arbitrator is not bound by the CPC, however, it does not mean that the arbitrator cannot draw sustenance from the procedures as laid down under the Code. It further held that the arbitrator can in fact travel beyond CPC and only fetter on its powers is to observe the principles of Natural Justice.
Case Title: Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim dynamic injunction against 33 Instagram handles and Ashok Kumar (unknown persons) restraining them from using parts of Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story to promote their businesses.
Justice Manish Pitale held that the makers made out a strong prima facie case that the posts violated the proprietary rights of the makers.
Case Title: MV Golden Pride v. GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court held that the agent of a ship seeking indemnity against the shipowner for unpaid port dues is a Maritime claim, and the High Court can entertain it under Section 4 of the Admiralty Act, 2017.
A division bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Rajesh Patil held the words “arising out of” in section 4(1) (HC jurisdiction over maritime claim) have a wide meaning and would include an agent’s indemnity claim against the vessel over unpaid port dues.
Case Title: Alice D’souza v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra government to handover possession of two South Mumbai flats back to the owner, a 93-year-old woman, over eighty years after they were requisitioned in 1942.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye held that the original legal relationship between the owner and the occupants of the requisitioned flats would not change merely because of Payment of rent by the occupant and the acceptance by the owner.
“issuance of a few rent receipts by owner to the occupants in case of requisitioned premises, does not amount to change of legal relationship between them or any admission of landlord tenant relationship, especially when non-handing over of possession to Owner, has resulted in the said premises remaining under requisition”, the court held.
Case Title: Buddheshwar S/o Babulal Lilhare v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court clarified that an employer is not bound to terminate an employee who suppresses the fact about the pendency of a criminal case against him.
A division bench of Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Anil L Pansare said that suppression by a person on a higher post which may be sensitive in nature may be on a different pedestal than suppression by a Class IV employee who is not on a sensitive post.
The court said that other factors such as the nature of accusation and appointment on compassionate ground can be taken into consideration while deciding whether or not to terminate the employee.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
Child custody orders can be altered and moulded at various stages of a child’s life keeping in mind his welfare, the Bombay High Court has observed.
A single bench of Justice Neela Gokhale allowed a man to re-approach the Family Court to alter the mutual consent divorce terms with his ex-wife regarding child access, owing to the wife’s remarriage.