Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593Nominal Index:Naresh Goyal v. ED, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582M/S. Truly Pest Solution Private Limited vs. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineering, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583Radhabai Shirke vs...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
Nominal Index:
Naresh Goyal v. ED, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580
Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581
Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582
M/S. Truly Pest Solution Private Limited vs. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineering, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584
Shailesh Ranka and others vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
Varanium Cloud Limited And Anr. vs. Rolta Private Limited And Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 586
Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 587
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. NIA & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 588
S v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 589
State of Maharashtra vs Haribhau, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 590
Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal, Employees Provident Fund, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 591
Satish Kakade vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 592
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
Judgments/Final Orders:
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal On Medical Grounds
Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580
The Bombay High Court has made Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal's interim bail absolute in relation to a money laundering case.
A single-judge bench of Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar, who had earlier granted interim bail to Goyal made it absolute.
Case Title: Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process would not invade the privacy of the candidates and that such disclosure is permissible under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed the orders passed by a Public Information Officer (PIO) and the subsequent ones passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities, which denied disclosure of information related to the marks obtained by the candidates in a public recruitment process, stating that the same would invade their right to privacy.
Case Title: Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582
The Bombay High Court last week held that the High Courts do have 'jurisdiction' and 'power' to interfere in the electoral process but the same must be exercised only to further the process or progress of the elections.
A division bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somasekhar Sundaresan, which was presiding over a vacation court on November 6, refused to grant any relief to one Ashish Gadkari, an independent candidate, whose nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer of the Chembur Constituency in Mumbai, citing procedural lapses.
Case Title: M/S. Truly Pest Solution Private Limited Vs. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineering
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived the ineligibility of the arbitrator by sending a signed letter.
Case Title: Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (November 12) held that a daughter will not have any limited or absolute right of inheritance in the properties of her father, if he has died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain answered a reference - Whether a daughter could acquire any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956, leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well? - made by a single-judge, way back on February 28, 2007.
Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and others Vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Manish Pitale has held that the moment it becomes clear that the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is being exercised by the “High Court” and not by an authority in the form of the “Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him”, there can be no confusion about the fact that as a constitutional court and court of record, this Court can exercise power of review even in the context of order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Varanium Cloud Limited And Anr. vs. Rolta Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 586
The Bombay High Court has observed that a dispute arising out of a singular transaction of assignment of debt cannot be considered a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A single judge Justice Abhay Ahuja was considering Varanium Cloud Ltd's) interim application for return of plaint on the ground that the suit was incorrectly instituted by Rolta Private Ltd as an Ordinary Summary Suit.
Case Title: Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 587
The Bombay High Court stated that refund rejection order passed without hearing opportunity violates rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 and principles of natural justice.
The Bench of Justices M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “……in any event, proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, contemplates reasonable opportunity to be heard, implying that such hearing should be after the assessee files the reply within the time prescribed in the show cause notice.”
No Judge Will Decide Cases Based On A Film: Bombay HC On Plea Apprehending "Match Fixing" Movie May Affect Malegaon Blast Case Verdict
Case title: Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. NIA & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 588
The Bombay High Court while clearing the decks for the release of the controversial film 'Match Fixing: The Nation is At Stake', said no judge in India would ever decide a trial on the basis of a movie's plot.
A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan pulled up one of the petitioners, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Prasad Purohit, for objecting to the movie's release on the grounds that the same may affect the trial concerning the 2008 Malegaon blast and its outcome.
Even Consensual Sex With Minor Wife Is Rape: Bombay High Court
Case title: S v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 589
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur recently held that a man even if indulging in consensual sexual intercourse with his wife, who is below the age of 18 years, can be booked for the offence of rape, irrespective of the wife's consent.
Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while upholding the conviction of a man for raping his minor wife, rejected his argument that the sexual intercourse with the victim was consensual and cannot amount to rape since she was his wife, at the relevant time.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Haribhau Telgote
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 590
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Wednesday (November 13) while commuting the death sentence of two men and a woman to life term, objected to the reasoning of the Trial Court, especially for quoting Mahabharata verses.
A division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Abhay Mantri took exception to various reasons provided by a Trial Court in Akot City of Akola District, wherein the Trial Judge referred to Mahabharata, highlighted the statistics of murders in past 10 years, one of the convicts being a 'teacher' thus bringing disrepute to the noble profession, etc.
Retention Allowance Forms Part Of Basic Wages For EPF Contributions: Bombay HC
Case Name: Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal, Employees Provident Fund
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 591
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare held that retention allowances paid to seasonal workers must be included in basic wages for PF contributions under the EPF Act, 1952. The court dismissed Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd.'s petition challenging provident fund contribution demands on retention allowances paid from 1991-92 to 2008.
Case Title: Satish Kakade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 592
Observing that 'poverty is the biggest issue in India, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court last month granted bail to a man booked for raping his minor fiancé on the ground that they were to soon marry since their families had decided to get them married.
Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the present case was a 'genuine' one as it touched the 'societal structure' of the country, wherein people due to poverty usually get their daughters married off at a young age.
Case Title: Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday (November 14) while permitting the Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi to resume the practice of offering flowers to Sai Baba in the temple, directed that flowers must be made available for devotees for offering at a reasonable price.
A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Shailesh Brahme made it clear that the Credit Co-operative Society of the Employees of the Sansthan, will purchase the flowers directly from the farmers and no middlemen must be allowed to intervene the transaction.
Other Orders/Observations:
The Bombay High Court while pulling up the Maharashtra government, Mumbai Police and also the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), observed that the there is not a single lane in entire Mumbai which is free from hawkers.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata said the entire city is encroached by illegal hawkers thereby making it difficult for the citizens to walk freely on the streets.
The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction against trademark and copyright infringement 'CAMPA' beverages, owned by Reliance Retail Ltd.
A single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla opined that prima facie CAMPA products have acquired immense goodwill and reputation. The Court noted that the JHAMPA mark is deceptively similar to Reliance's CAMPA trademark in visuals, phonetics and structure.
In what could spell trouble for Delhi's popular food festival - 'Horn Ok Please', the Bombay High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (November 12) restrained the Sports Authority of India (SAI) from playing songs or music owned by the Phonograhic Performance Limited (PPL) without obtaining prior licence.
A single bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla noted that the SAI has previously infringed the rights of the PPL by playing its recordings without obtaining licence.