NOMINAL INDEX Pravin Sahebrao Bhogawade v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 199 Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200 Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201 D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202 Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai...
NOMINAL INDEX
Pravin Sahebrao Bhogawade v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
Nawab Malik vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Gautam Kamlakar Pardeshi and anr v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
Seema Jagdish Patil v The National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
Latabai vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
Anand Singh vs The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
Choice Developers vs Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 213
Narayan vs Mrs. Sangita and anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
State of Maharashtra vs Adarsh Waterparks Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
Jar Productions Private Limited vs The Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
Ravi Goenka vs The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
Harmesh Singh Chadha @ Jimmy vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
Esrar Nazrul Ahemad Versus State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
Mr. Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Ocean Sparkle Limited. V Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. And anr; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
Ajay Vaishampayan v. Union of India; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited Versus The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
Ashish Ashok Chakor v. State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
Mohammad Raisuddin v The National Investigating Agency and anr; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod vs. The Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten, Nagpur and ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Board of Control for Cricket in India Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
REPORTS
Case Title - Pravin Sahebrao Bhogawade v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
The Bombay High Court clarified that citizens, no matter how anxious they are or how serious their grievance is, are not permitted to take the law in their own hands and/or adversely deal with Public officials discharging their lawful duty.
Case Title – Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
The Bombay High court quashed an FIR under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for penetrative sexual assault, as the victim girl (now a major) said that she and the accused were allegedly in love and are now to be married.
The court observed it was "inclined to accept the request for quashing the FIR, only by considering their future. If the prosecution still remains, it will come in their peaceful life."
Case Title : Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
The Bombay High Court pulled up the complainant teacher for putting up banners seeking the principal's arrest, while granting anticipatory bail to the principal accused of hurling casteist remarks, a punishable offence under the SC/ST Act, at an "under-performing" teacher.
"Once the complaint is lodged, FIR registered, the publication of the banner is uncalled for. Complainant cannot seek extra judicial remedies to pressurize the prosecution. Prosecution will carry out the investigation on the basis of cogent material on record and its investigation process. Parties should desist from such acts and allow the prosecution to do its duty in accordance with law."
Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr.
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
The Bombay High Court held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood.
The Single Bench reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is extremely limited and that the arbitrability of the dispute is required to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title : Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction orders passed against a group of unauthorized occupants, claiming tenancy rights on the premises of Mumbai International Airport.
A Single bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that the land in question was acquired by the State in 1947 and hence, even if the owner himself tries to retain possession thereof, he will become a trespasser. Reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others.
Case Title: Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot restrain a citizen from travelling abroad since there is no specific or implied provision empowering it under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held.
The bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Amit Borkar observed that a citizen's right to travel abroad forms part of "personal liberty" defined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, to restrain a person from travelling abroad, it was necessary to have such a provision under the Act.
"The State has not made any law or provision in the said Act seeking to deprive or regulate the right of a person to travel abroad. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
Case Title : Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
The Bombay High court set aside the conviction of a man in connection with the murder of his wife, even though her body was found in their home and he was found near the deceased.
A Bench reasoned that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, before the accused can be asked to explain the circumstances in his defence.
It noted that as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution is unable to conclusively prove that the accused harmed his wife, the onus would not shift upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which his wife has died, and her dead body is found in the house occupied by the accused and the deceased.
Case Title – Nawab Malik vs UOI
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Bombay High Court refused immediate relief to Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik to cast his vote in the Rajya Sabha elections today with liberty to approach the appropriate bench.
The court said that the petition under Article 227 and 482 CrPC was not maintainable and Malik was at liberty to approach the bench hearing bail applications.
"From the tenor of the application before special court and this Court, the primary prayer is for releasing petitioner for casting his vote on execution of a bond. The bond which can be referred to, can only be a bail bond under 439,437 of the CrPC. The petitioner is an undertrial and subject matter is to be decided by the appropriate bench. He should have moved the application before the bench for relief," the court said.
Case Title : Gautam Kamlakar Pardeshi and anr v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
The Bombay High Court held that the "last seen theory," whereby the accused is the last person spotted with the victim, is not enough to hold him guilty of the crime in the absence of a correlation with the time of the victim's demise.
The prosecution must establish the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the time of death, the court added. "Unless there is proximity in the time of last seen and the time of death, the evidence cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused."
Case Title : Seema Jagdish Patil v The National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
Compensation or income received by certain land-owners on account of the property acquired by the National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL) for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project through private negotiations and sale deed is exempted from tax, the Bombay High Court held.
A division bench observed that merely because the compensation amount to the land-owner is agreed upon, it would not change the character of acquisition, from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale under the Act.
Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
The Bombay High Court has held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood.
The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is extremely limited and that the arbitrability of the dispute is required to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title : Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
The Bombay High court recently set aside the conviction of a man in connection with the murder of his wife, even though her body was found in their home and he was found near the deceased.
A Bench of Justices Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav reasoned that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, before the accused can be asked to explain the circumstances in his defence.
Case Title – Latabai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
The Bombay High Court dismissed Shiv Sena MLA Latabai Sonawane's plea challenging a decision of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Certificate Committee that had dismissed her claim of belonging to the Tokre Koli, an ST community.
A division bench observed that "the petitioner's father's caste in his birth register is shown as "Koli". It was a pre-Independence entry. The revenue record in the name of her grandfather shows his caste as "Hindu". "Hindu" is not a caste. Her sisters' caste in the school leaving certificates is also not shown as "Tokre Koli". The petitioner has no case that she, her sisters, father or grandfather has ever attempted to correct in their school record."
Victim May Seek Enhancement Of Accused' Sentence By Filing Revision Application: Bombay High Court
Case Title - Anand Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters
Citation –2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
A victim can seek enhancement of her/ his offender's jail time (sentence) only through a revision application and not by filing an appeal against the trial court's judgement, the Bombay High Court held.
While a victim's appeal against sentence may not be maintainable under section 372 of the CrPC, a revision application under section 401 of the CrPC for the same relief would survive. Such an application is also recognised under Rule 2(II)(a) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the court said. The revision would go before a division bench.
Case Title: Choice Developers versus Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 213
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the Court is free to pass an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to grant interim measures of protection against a third party who is impleaded in the petition filed under Section 9.
Case Title : Narayan v Mrs. Sangita and anr
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
The Bombay HC recently dealt with a case wherein a truck driver, who was the employee of the owner of the truck met with a vehicular accident. As he had initiated compensation proceedings under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("M.V. Act"), his claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act 1923) ("W.C. Act") was not entertained by the commissioner.
The court held that the compensation granted under chapter X of the M.V. Act does not forfeit the right of the employee to claim the compensation under section 3 of the 1923 Act as provided under Section 167 of the M.V. Act.
Case Title - State of Maharashtra vs Adarsh Waterparks Pvt Ltd
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
The Bombay High Court granted relief to the Maharashtra government and set aside a consent decree by which a private firm obtained development rights, in October 2020, for over 6,000 acre of land in Kanjurmarg village, including the 102-acre land designated for a Metro car shed.
"There was a larger responsibility cast on the advocates to disclosed all the facts...Suppression of all these facts has led the court pass the order. Thus, undeniably fraud of a huge proportion has been played by suppressing the claims of various other parties. The consent decree is a product of the fraud."
Services Rendered Abroad Amounts to Export Of Services, No GST Applicable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jar Productions Private Limited Versus The Union of India & Ors.
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
The Bombay High Court held that GST does not apply to the services rendered abroad as they amount to the export of services.
The division bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice M.G. Sewlikar has allowed the GST refund to the petitioner/assessee as the department has failed to establish that the incidence of tax was passed on to the client amounted to unjust enrichment.
Case Title : Ravi Goenka Versus The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. & Ors.
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
In a setback for the Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd., one of the oldest clubs in the city, the Bombay High Court refused to appoint a new inquiry officer to investigate allegations of assault against club-member and advocate - Ravi Goenka.
Refusing relief for the club, Justice Riyaz Chagla cited the delay on their part in approaching the High Court to substitute Justice (Retd.) S.J. Vazifdar. Justice Chagla rejected the club's justification, that since only very urgent matters were being taken up during the Covid-19 pandemic, they approached the court only in 2022.
Case Title: Harmesh Singh Chadha @ Jimmy v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
Bombay HC held that bed & breakfast lodging permitted by the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) in residential premises to promote tourism requires licence from BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as it is a commercial use of premises.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Act, 1988 (MMC Act) restricts certain activities including 'lodging' sans Civic chief's nod. Section 394 of the MMC Act imposes a restriction upon certain activities to be carried out within limits of the Corporation except on the licence granted by the Commissioner and this includes carrying of any trade upon any premises which is specified in part IV of Schedule M or any process or operation connected with any such trade and Part IV of Schedule 'M' cover an activity of 'lodging', the court noted.
Case Title: Esrar Nazrul Ahemad Versus State of Maharashtra
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Refusing anticipatory bail to a man accused of forwarding a married woman's nude video to several people, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie his alleged misdeed would be an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.
Section 67A prescribes the punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the term 'sexually explicit' under section 67A of the IT Act wouldn't only mean the act of intercourse and may also include a nude video. Therefore, the court rejected the defence's submission that mere forwarding a nude video would not fall within the purview of 'sexually explicit' content and cited the Oxford dictionary meaning of "explicit," in support.
Case Title - Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
In the order refusing relief to NCP leaders Nawab Malik and Anil Deshmukh, the Bombay High Court held that the bar under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 against allowing a prisoner to vote is applicable to an undertrial as well and not just to a convict.
"If a full play is given to the provisions contained in section 2(d) and Section 62(5) of the RP Act 1951, an inference becomes inescapable that a person in custody, either post conviction or during the course of investigation or trial, is prohibited from casting vote in any election", the court observed.
Further, the Court observed that permitting a person in prison to vote, who is otherwise barred from voting wouldn't strengthen democracy.
Case Title: Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
The High Court of Bombay held that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not an absolute bar to a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act as long as the petitioner can withdraw its suit before the defendant files its statement on the issue.
A single bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that it is also permissible for the Civil Court to consider an application of the plaintiff to permit withdrawal of the suit when there is an arbitration agreement, and refers the parties for arbitration.
The Court held the rights accrued to a party as the legal heir of its deceased parents in their estate are independent of its right which is recognized by a partnership deed as a legal heir of the deceased partners.
Case Title: Mr.Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The Bombay High Court granted bail to 21-year-old pharmacy student Nikhil Bhamre, who was arrested for defamatory posts allegedly aimed at NCP president Sharad Pawar.
The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar orally observed, "He is a student; he is in custody since a month. We will pass an order granting him bail." The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against him in cases he hasn't been arrested.
Case Title: Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court passed a John Doe order directing police assistance in removing all links or pirated copies of the movie "Janhit Mein Jaari" in a copyright Infringement case filed producers Bhanushali Studios Ltd.
Justice Riyaz Chagla granted ad-interim relief against unknown parties last week for removing unauthorised online links and pirated copies of the film online.
The film starring actor Nushratt Bharuccha traces the journey of a woman on a mission to sell condoms in a small town in Madhya Pradesh amidst the social taboos around sex.
Case Title: HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court held that even though a Scheme of Compromise entered into under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 overrides all the agreements between the affected parties, arbitral proceedings cannot be imposed by a Company on a Debenture Trustee by virtue of the said Scheme only, in the absence of an arbitration agreement between them.
A single bench of Justice A.K. Menon ruled that the Debenture Trustee was an independent obligation of the Company and thus, the arbitration clause contained in the Scheme was not binding on the Debenture Trustee.
Case Title: Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
In a relief for flat purchasers of one of the two buildings constructed by Raymond Ltd in the 1960-70's, the Bombay High Court upheld certain amendments in a suit filed against the company and its chairman Gautam Singhania.
The amendments to the plaint pertain to Raymond's alleged failure to obtain an occupation certificate (OC) even after 50-years, non-execution of a conveyance or lease deed in favour of the plaintiff society, access to the common terrace, restrictions on using the garden.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that the amendments were not malafide or irrelevant and did not cause any prejudice to Singhania. In fact, they were "relevant to decide the controversy between the parties."
Case Title: Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
The Bombay High Court refused to modify the maintenance amount payable by a father to his major daughter observing that her 'glossy' Instagram photographs weren't sufficient proof of her income.
"It is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true,'' Justice Bharati Dangre observed.
After perusing printed copies of the daughter's Instagram profile where she claimed she earned Rs. 72–Rs 80 lakh as a model, the court upheld the family court's observation that "photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."
Case Title: Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
A bank cannot retain title documents of a borrower's house after repayment of a loan, citing general lien on documents, merely because of pendency of another loan, the Bombay High Court held.
The bench partly-allowed a borrower's writ petition and directed Union Bank of India to handover title documents of his flat despite recovery proceedings, for another unpaid loan by the petition's company, pending before the DRT.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that the bank's general lien on security (title document) under section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act, wouldn't apply after closure of the loan account.
Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court held that the service recipient is liable to pay GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.
A single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.
Case Title: Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
In a set-back for Union Minister Narayan Rane, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking regularisation of illegal portions of the plush 8 storey building in Juhu where the BJP leader resides with his family.
The court, however, granted a six week stay on the order to approach the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar observed, "Since (prima facie) construction carried out is totally unauthorised, the question of political rivalry does not arise."
Case Title: M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court held that a person who may not be an importer or exporter can still file an application under section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Settlement Commission if he is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.
A division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan observed that the term "any other person" appearing in Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 should be interpreted to mean in its literal sense. The proviso to Section 127-B provides that a bill of entry must be filed, not necessarily by the person who approaches the settlement commission, provided the person is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.
Case Title: Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Children can seek execution of Railway's compensation award on behalf of their deceased mother, even after receiving their own share of compensation, the Bombay High Court held.
The court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order which held that the petitioner-sons were not eligible to receive compensation awarded to their deceased mother and grandmother, having already received their share of compensation, after their father's demise in a Railway accident.
"I hold, appellants were entitled to recover the compensation that had fallen due to Lakshmibai and Indubai, but remained unpaid," Justice SK Shinde observed.
Case Title: Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
A factual news report on the contents of an FIR is not defamatory and initiating criminal action against the reporter in such a scenario is nothing but an attempt to stifle the scribe and coerce him to withdraw the report, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench said.
Justice Vinay Joshi quashed an FIR against the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited Vijay Darda and the Editor-in-Chief Rajendra Darda, accused of defamation under section 500 of the IPC for a report published in 2016.
The court observed that journalists wouldn't be able to report till the final outcome of a case if they were barred from reporting on the FIR, which in turn would deprive the public their right to learn about happenings.
Case Title : Ocean Sparkle Limited. V Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. And anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
The Bombay High Court recently has observed that set-off of unliquidated damages that are not ascertained or admitted against an undisputed claim is not tenable.
Single judge G.S. KULKARNI reiterated that a Section 9 Court would not be unduly bound by procedural law contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the underlying principle being to make arbitration an effective form of dispute resolution; and that a performance bank guarantee ("PBG") cannot be invoked contrary to the provision for its invocation in the PBG itself.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging PoP Ban For Sculpting Idols
Case Title: Ajay Vaishampayan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the ban on use of Plaster of Paris (POP) for making Ganesh idols.
PIL petitioner Ajay Vaishampayan, an activist, had claimed that PoP was banned without any scientific tests on its effect on water. And Shadu clay idols, used as an alternate option, were more harmful for the environment.
However, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed an appeal against the National Green Tribunal's order, thereby upholding the ban.
Case Title: Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited Versus The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited's petition challenging its disqualification in the tender for upgradation of the container terminal in Navi Mumbai by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA).
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said the plea was "non-meritorious" and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh, payable to JNPA.
Friendly Relations Not Consent To Establish Physical Relations: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ashish Ashok Chakor v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court recently observed that a girl merely being friendly with a boy doesn't allow him to misconstrue it as her consent to establish a sexual relationship with her and rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man accused of impregnating a woman under the pretext of marriage.
Justice Bharati Dangre rejected the pre-arrest bail plea filed by one Ashish Chakor accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage and booked under sections Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(h) and 417 of the IPC.
Case Title : Mohammad Raisuddin v The National Investigating Agency and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man from Parbhani, accused of taking an oath of allegiance to the banned terror organisation Islamic State and booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and VG Bisht granted bail to Mohammad Raisuddin noting that laboratories had given divergent views connecting "oath" document to the handwriting of the accused. Moreover, NIA did not tender the opinion in the accused's favour for over two years.
Even otherwise, the Oath declaring a former leader of the IS as the "caliph" of Muslims was not prima facie incriminating, the court said.
No Absolute Right Under RTE Act For Admission To Unaided Minority Schools : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod .vs. The Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten, Nagpur and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
A student doesn't have a "right" to admission to a private un-aided minority school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and granting admission is the absolute discretion of the school, the Bombay High Court has held.
The court cited the Supreme Court judgement in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India wherein it was held that a Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
ESI Act Applicable To BCCI As Its Activities Are Commercial In Nature : Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court has upheld an order holding that the nature of activities conducted by the Board Of Control for Cricket in India are commercial activities under the ESI Act making the regulatory body liable to pay its employees accordingly.
Justice Bharati Dangre, in a judgement passed last week, dismissed an appeal filed by the BCCI and upheld the finding of the Employee Insurance Court (ESI Court) that the Board was covered under the notification dated 18/9/1978 issued under the provision of Section 1(5) of the Employee State Insurance (ESI) Act by the Maharashtra Government.