CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 240 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367

Nominal Index

1. 'A' v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 240

2. Siddharth Pithani v. UoI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

3. Priya Malay Sheth v. VLCC Health Care Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 242

4. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

5. TATA Motors Ltd. & Anr. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

6. Monika Narendra Sharma v. Mukeshkumar Ramnath Bhagal 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 245

7. M/s. D.P. Construction v. M/s. Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 246

8. Karishma Prakash v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247

9. Syed Athar Ali and Another v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248

10. United Projects v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249

11. ABC vs XYZ 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

12. ABC 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

13. Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

14. Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

15. Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

16. Sathyanarayana Rani v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

17. Rahim Manji Kaba vs Moosabhai Gagji Khetani 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256

18. Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257

19. Anand Prabhakar Joshi vs Bank of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258

20. Santacruz Gymkhana vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

21. Vodafone Idea Limited vs UOI and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

22. Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

23. Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke vs Haribhau Jagannath Bedke 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

24. Sterlite Industries (lndia) Limited and ors vs Special Director of Enforcement and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 263

25. International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264

26. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 v. Kumar Builders Consortium 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

27. Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 266

28. Om v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 267

29. Meenanath Fatarpekar v. MicroStrategy India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 268

30. Siddharth Banthia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 269

31. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. OSV Crest Mercury 1 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270

32. Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

33. Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

34. Nikita d/o Narayan Gore v. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 273

35. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

36. Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. v. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

37. Smita Pansare v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

38. Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar v. Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

39. Xyz v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (WP 9012 of 2022) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

40. Rajendra R. Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

41. Sukoon Construction Pvt. Ltd v. The Collector of Stamp & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

42. Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

43. Vasant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 282

44. Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

45. Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284

46. B. Chopda Construction Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 285

47. Obedullah Abdul Rashid Radiowala v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

48. Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

49. Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 288

50. Vanashakti & Anr v. Revenue & Forest Dept, State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

51. Chirag R. Mehta v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 290

52. Prathamesh v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 291

53. Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 292

54. S. J. Enterprises & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 293

55. Vishwajit Sud & Co. v. L & T Stec JV, Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 294

56. Siddhi Real Estate Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 295

57. Vipul Chitalia v. CBI and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 296

58. Subodh M Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 297

59. Ashok Palav Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Pankaj Bhagubhai Desai & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 298

60. Shyamwar Pinturam Rai v. CBI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 299

61. Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Insurance Ombudsman & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

62. Madhukar Makaji Mudgul v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

63. Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul Phadtare; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

64. National Highways Authority of India v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

65. MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

66. Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

67. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

68. Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare v. The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

69. BXIN Office Parks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kailasa Urja Pvt. Ltd.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 308

70. Anand I Power Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

71. Nizar Noorali Rangara and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 310

72. USP Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Ganpati Enterprises & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 311

73. Relcon Infroprojects Ltd. & Anr. v. Ridhi Sidhi Sadan, Unit of Shree Ridhi Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 312

74. Jagdish Lahu Badhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313

75. Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 314

76. Sunil Vishnu Mukane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 315

77. Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax & Anr. with 11 connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 316

78. Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317

79. Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318

80. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319

81. Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320

82. Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321

83. Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 322

84. Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

85. Sayaji Dashrath Kawade v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 324

86. Priya Kedar Gokhale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

87. Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 326

88. Sunita and Ors v. Sandipan Dyanoba Tathapare and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

89. Vikas Ramji Yadav Through Ramji Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

90. Kishor Manohar Kamble and Anr v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

91. Swanath Foundation v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

92. Sunil Gupta and Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

93. Agisilaos Demetriades v. The Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

94. Arun Krishnachandra Goswami v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

95. Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

96. Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

97. Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

98. Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337

99. Kaalka Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338

100.Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

101.Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340

102.Armaan Kohli v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341

103.Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342

104.R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343

105.Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

106.M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345

107.Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346

108.The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347

109.Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

110.Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349

111.The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350

112.Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351

113.Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352

114.Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

115.M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354

116.Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

117.Ajaz Mohammad Shaf Khan v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 356

118.Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Anr. v. The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 357

119.Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358

120.Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359

121.Chetan Vyas v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 360

122.Pawan Shamsundar Sarda and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 361

123.All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362

124.High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363

125.Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 364

126.Faiyyaz Mullaji v. Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 365

127.Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366

128.Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367

Reports

1. Can't Force Rape Victim To Mother A Child: Bombay High Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 16 Week Pregnancy

Case Title: 'A' v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 240

The Bombay High Court allowed the termination of a 16 weeks' pregnancy of a minor who was a victim of sexual abuse and was also in custody at an Observation Home for a crime of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted that the Apex Court has observed that reproductive choice is an insegregable part of a woman's personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"She cannot be forced to give birth to a child...She has a choice to give birth to the child or not," it observed.

2. Sushant Singh Rajput's Flatmate Siddharth Pithani Gets Bail From Bombay High Court In Drugs Case

Case Title: Siddharth Pithani v. UoI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to Siddharth Pithani, former flatmate of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, accused in an illicit drug probe following the Actor's death.

Justice Bharati Dangre ordered bail on the execution of a PR Bond of Rs. 50,000.

3. Place Designated As The 'Venue' Of Arbitration In Its Entirety, Is The 'Seat' Of Arbitration: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Priya Malay Sheth v. VLCC Health Care Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 242

The Bombay High Court reiterated that whenever a place is designated as the "venue" of the arbitration proceedings in its entirety in an Arbitration Clause, the said place would necessarily be the "seat" of the arbitral proceedings.

The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that such part of the Arbitration Agreement wherein the parties had agreed upon the venue of the arbitration proceedings, would be required to be read as distinct and independent from the arbitral mechanism agreed between the parties.

4. Bombay High Court Allows Release Of 'Khuda Haafiz 2' As Producers Agree To Changes Recommended By CBFC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

The Bombay High Court disposed of a petition against the release of the movie Khuda Haafiz Chapter II after it was informed that changes suggested by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) were already made and additional changes to the film's trailer would be reflected before its release, on July 8, 2022.

The film is produced by Cinergy, Panorama Studios and Zee Studios.

The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and SM Modak heard the petition filed by 12 Islamic organisations including the All India Idarae Tahfuz-e-Husainiyat, that objected to the negative portrayal of zajeer-ka-matam in the film's trailer. It is an act of inflicting pain on oneself in the prophet's name during the holy month of Muharram.

5. Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification Of Tata Motors From Electric Buses Tender Invited By BEST; Also Sets Aside Grant To Evey Trans

Case Title: TATA Motors Ltd. & Anr. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday upheld Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport's (BEST) decision to disqualify Tata Motors' bid for operation of electric buses.

A division bench of Justices Sanjay Gangapurwala and M.J. Jamdar observed that the company had deviated from the "material and the substantial term" of the tender and thus, BEST had rightly disqualified it from the tender process.

6. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea For Annulment Of Marriage By Wife Claiming She Was Drugged

Case Title: Monika Narendra Sharma v. Mukeshkumar Ramnath Bhagal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 245

A petition for annulment of marriage on grounds of fraud must be presented within a year of discovering such deception, the Bombay High Court said, refusing relief to a woman who claimed she was drugged and abducted to her marriage venue in December 2011.

A division bench of Justices KR Shriram and Prithviraj Chavan observed that "no sane man would believe her statement" that an educated independent woman in a city like Mumbai, would remain silent and passive after being drugged with prasad, abducted from her office, married and then brought back to office the following day.

7. Invocation Of Arbitration Has To Be In Clear Terms; Merely Stating Claims Would Not Suffice: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. D.P. Construction v. M/s. Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 246

The Bombay High Court ruled that invocation of arbitration has to be in clear terms, as specified in Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that a mere reference to the claims and disputes sought to be raised by a party, and the existence of an arbitration clause, would not itself mean that arbitration has been invoked by such a party.

The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed that Section 21 of the A&C Act specifically refers to a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration as regards the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Hence, the Court ruled that unless there is a request by a party that the dispute is to be referred to arbitration, merely stating the claims and disputes in a notice would not suffice.

8. SSR Case: Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Celebrity Manager Karishma Prakash

Case Title: Karishma Prakash v. UoI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247

The bench referred the following question to a larger bench for consideration. "Whether all offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable, irrespective of the punishment prescribed and irrespective of the fact that many offences do not even mandate imprisonment as a punishment?"

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karishma Prakash, actor Deepika Padukone's former manager, in the drugs connected to actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death. The court observed that her claims of using CBD oil (cannibus) because of the rashes that broke out due to stress after receiving summons in the case, did not appear truthful. Moreover, her custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate bank transactions, allegedly to procure drugs.

9. S438 CrPC - Asking Accused To Mark Attendance At Police Station Not Mere Formality, It Is An Opportunity For IO To Investigate: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Syed Athar Ali and Another v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248

The Aurangabad Bench said that the condition of "police attendance" imposed by the court on an accused is not a mere formality and must be used by the police for proper investigation.

"Granting the attendance is not for the purpose of mere attendance. It is an opportunity to the Investigation Officer to make investigation in pursuance of the allegations made against the accused," the court said while granting anticipatory bail.

10. Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court

Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249

The Bombay High Court ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.

11. "Mother Can't Be Asked To Choose Between Child & Career": Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Go Abroad With Daughter

Case title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

Observing that a woman cannot be asked to choose between her career and child the Bombay High Court directed her estranged husband to give his no objection for her to travel along with her daughter to Poland.

"...the impugned order has failed to consider the important aspect of right to development, being vested in the petitioner as she cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career, the impugned order is quashed and set aside."

12. Bombay High Court Directs National ART & Surrogacy Board To Decide Lawyer Couple's Plea For Transfer Of Cryo-Preserved Embryo

Case Title: ABC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

The Bombay High Court has directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to expeditiously decide a Mumbai based couple's plea to transfer their cryo-preserved embryos from a hospital to an IVF clinic.

This will be the first case to be decided by the National Board, counsel for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said.

The lawyer-couple approached the High Court as the hospital was unwilling to transfer their embryos citing the new Act, and also due to the ambiguity around constitution and functioning of the National board and State boards under the ART and Surrogacy Act.

13. Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award.

The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, however, the amendment can only add some facts to the pending challenge but it cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge.

14. JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Bombay High Court

Case title: Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

The Bombay High Court has held that a child in conflict with law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can file an application under Section 438 of CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Bharat Deshpande observed, "When a child in conflict with law is apprehended, his liberty is curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. affords a valuable right to a person, who is likely to be arrested or in other words, whose liberty is likely to be curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between different persons

15. [Order 1 Rule 10 CPC] Can't Compel Plaintiff To Wage Legal Battle Against A Person Against Their Will: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

The Bombay High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot be forced to sue third parties who have no interest or share in the suit property.

"..the plaintiff is dominus litis which latin expression means that the plaintiff is the master of the suit," the court stated. It added that the only exception to this would be if the law necessitated the presence of third party, either as necessary party or proper party.

16. Gadchiroli Blast Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 72-Yrs-Old Alleged Naxal Operative

Case Title: Sathyanarayana Rani v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

Bombay High Court granted bail to 72-year-old to Sathyanarayana Rani, arrested in 2019 for allegedly being a top Naxal operative and conspiring the attack on security personnel in Gadchiroli.

On May 1, 2019 fifteen security personnel from the Quick Response Team (QRT) and one civilian were killed in an IED explosion attack in Gadchiroli. The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

17. Bar Under Section 41(1) Of The Presidency Small Causes Courts Act Is Not Attracted When The Tenant-Landlord Relationship Is Non-Existing: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rahim Manji Kaba v. Moosabhai Gagji Khetani

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256

The Bombay High Court held that bar under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882[i] is not attracted to a dispute regarding declaration of tenancy rights under a partnership deed when the licensor-licensee or landlord/tenant relationship is non-existent

The Bench held that the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act only applies where the parties have a landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee relationship between themselves.

18. S.138 NI Act | Non-Executive Directors Not Liable For Company's Actions/Omissions Unless Involved In Day-To-Day Affairs: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against independent non-executive directors of Tecpro Systems Ltd observing they were not responsible for day-to-day functioning of the company.

The court was dealing with an application requesting quashing of criminal proceedings before the trial court in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

"Non-executive director not being a promoter of or key managerial persons shall be held liable, only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by a company which had occurred with his knowledge, attributable through Board processes, and with his consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently", the court stated.

19. 11 Yrs Of Frivolous Litigation: Bombay High Court Reprimands Petitioner In Person, Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258

The Bombay High Court reprimanded a Pune resident, seeking second review of the court's earlier decision, stating that the petition was without merit and constituted abuse of process and law. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the petitioner.

The court said that advanced age of the petitioner cannot be a reason to take a sympathetic view as he is "fully aware that he has been fighting a lost legal battle which has no merit at all".

"Such conduct is highly deprecated as the petitioner appears to be incorrigible", the court stated.

20. Entertainment Duty Not Applicable On Billiards Tables At Members-Only Club: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Santacruz Gymkhana Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

Entertainment duty is not applicable on billiards tables at a members-only club, the Bombay High Court held while quashing demand notices issued to eight elite clubs in Mumbai under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act 1923.

Unlike a commercial pool parlor meant for public entertainment at a fee, the clubs neither allow outsiders nor benefit commercially from the activity. Therefore, providing billiards tables cannot be treated as "entertainment" and consequently cannot be taxable under the Act, the court held.

21. [IGST] Roaming Services And International Long Distance Services Provided By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators Is An Export Of Service: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited versus UOI and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the international Inbound Roaming Services (IIR) and the International Long Distance (ILD) Services provided by Vodafone Idea to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) is an export of services, and thus, Vodafone Idea is eligible for the refund of the IGST paid by it.

Noting that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the IGST Act were applicable, the Court held that the place of supply of service was the location of the recipient of the service, i.e., the location of the FTO, which was outside India.

22. An Enabling Clause Does Not Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement Between The Parties: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. versus Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

The Bombay High Court ruled that once the parties have agreed to use the word 'may', the parties have conferred a discretion to enter into an arbitration agreement in the future; and that such an enabling clause does not constitute any binding arbitration agreement between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni held that the use of the word "may" does not bring about any arbitration agreement between the parties, when tested on the touchstone of Section 7(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which defines the arbitration agreement.

23. S.125 CrPC Meant For Immediate Support, Courts Cannot Be Hyper Technical In Their Approach: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke v. Haribhau Jagannath Bedke

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court while deciding a writ petition related to maintenance said that courts should not get too technical while deciding petitions under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

"The said provision is made for the immediate support that too financial in nature of a person so that he or she can survive", the court stated.

24. Bombay High Court Quashes ED Order Imposing 25Cr Penalty On Sterlite Industries & Its Directors Over Alleged Violation Of Forex Rules

Case Title: Sterlite Industries (lndia) Limited and ors v Special Director of Enforcement and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 263

"Passing of the adjudication order after the offence has been compounded, is thus contrary to the statutory provisions discussed hereinabove, is not maintainable and thus without jurisdiction," the Bombay HC held.

In a relief to public limited company Sterlite Industries and its Directors, court an almost 14 years old order passed by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) which imposed penalties of Rs 20 crore on the company and Rs 5.20 crore on its promoter Anil Agarwal and three other Directors.

By this order passed on November 21, 2008, the ED had alleged violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) while acquiring 100% stake in Netherlands based Monte Cello BV which owned two copper mines in Australia.

25. ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai | Question Of Trademark's Proprietorship To Be Determined By Registrar: Bombay High Court

Case Title – International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264

The Bombay High Court has clarified that its previous decision of 2020, allowing the trademark infringement suit filed by ISKCON Mumbai against a clothing manufacturer was limited to recognizing ISKCON as a well-known trade mark in India within the meaning provided in Sections 2 (1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse made it clear that through the said judgment, the High Court has in no way recognized ISCKON Mumbai as the sole and exclusive proprietor of the mark.

"Registrar of Trademarks, is therefore, bound by the finding that ISKCON is well-known mark. As to who is entitled to the use of that mark or can be held to be its registered proprietor are questions expressly left open", the court said.

26. AO To Workout Pro Rata Deduction In Regard To Eligible Residential Units: Bombay High Court

Case Title - The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 v. Kumar Builders Consortium

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

The Bombay High Court upheld the order of the ITAT directing the Assessing Officer to work out the pro rata deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that Section 80IB(10) nowhere even remotely aims to deny the benefit of deduction in regard to a residential unit, which otherwise confirms the requirement of size at the cost of an ineligible residential unit with a built-up area of more than 1500 sq. ft.

27. Approach Of Believing That No Action Can Be Taken Against Wrongdoings Of Govt Servants Needs To Stop: Bombay High Court

Case Title - Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 266

The Bombay High Court dismissed a government bus conductor's appeal against dismissal of service stating, "The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one is found to be doing wrong is an approach that needs to now stop as fast as possible."

A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse said that proportionality of punishment must be considered in any case but that doesn't mean that every single infraction be treated leniently. "When one assesses the doctrine of proportionality, one looks not only at the immediate cause inviting punishment but also at the entire context and, in a given case, a pattern or a history of conduct especially past conduct", the court stated.

28. Tribal's Son Appointed On Compassionate Grounds Must Produce Caste Certificate If Not Submitted By Parent: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Case Title- Om v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 267

A full bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a compassionate appointee for a reserved category post wouldn't be exempted from submitting a caste validity certificate especially if the original holder of the post didn't produce a caste certificate during his lifetime.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ravendra Ghuge and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi dismissed two writ petitions seeking directions to the Department of Rural Development to exempt the petitioners from producing a caste certificate since their appointment was on compassionate grounds.

A judgement authored by Justice Ghuge answered the following question in the affirmative-

"Whether, a compassionate appointee, is not required to submit a caste/tribe validity certificate when the parent had secured employment, on the basis of a caste/tribe certificate, on a post which was specifically reserved for a backward category and who did not submit a validity certificate until his/her demise while in service?"

29. Section 29A Of The A&C Act Applies Prospectively Does Not Apply To Arbitration That Commenced Before The 2015 Amendment: Bombay High Court

Case Title- Meenanath Fatarpekar v. MicroStrategy India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 268

The High Court of Bombay held that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides a timeline of 12 months for passing an arbitral award would not apply to arbitration that commenced before the 2015 Amendment to the Act.

The Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act, which was incorporated into the principal act via the 2015 Amendment Act, would not apply to an arbitration proceeding commenced on 3^rd Feb 2015 as in terms of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, the amendment came in to force on 23^rd October 2015.

30. Consent Obtained For Sex In Second Marriage Without Disclosing First Marriage Prima Facie Constitutes Rape: Bombay High Court

Case Title - Siddharth Banthia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 269

Consent obtained for sex in a second marriage without disclosing first marriage would prime facie constitute rape, the Bombay High Court held refusing to discharge the 'husband' in a rape case filed by a Marathi actress.

Justice N.J. Jamadar held that prima facie, clause four of section 375 of the Penal Code under which the offence of rape is defined seems to be attracted in the present case.

"Where there is knowledge on the part of the man about he being not the husband of the prosecutrix and the consent is on account of such mistaken belief that he is her husband and a belief on the part of the prosecutrix that she is the wife of the man."

31. Pendency Of Arbitration Is Not A Bar To The Maintainability Of An Admiralty Suit For Arrest Of The Ship: Bombay High Court

Case Title- Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. OSV Crest Mercury 1

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270

The High Court of Bombay has held that the pendency of an arbitration proceeding between the parties on the same cause of action is not a bar to the institution of an admiralty suit.

The Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that merely because the vessel owner has instituted an arbitration against the charterer, the same would not preclude the charterer from filing an admiralty suit for recovery of its dues and arrest of the vessel in an action in rem.

32. High Court Asks Mumbai Collector To Take Steps For Demolition Of 48 'Obstructions' Around Mumbai Airport

Case Title- Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Union of India

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

The Bombay High Court held the Collector (Mumbai Suburban) responsible for removing obstacles, and directed her to take immediate steps to demolish 48 obstacles around the Mumbai airport.

The obstacles include certain floors of high-rises and the demolition would be undertaken under Rule 8 of the Aircraft Rules 1994.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said it its order in a PIL by seeking the removal of all obstacles to ensure air safety, "48 structures have been identified, Collector to personally affirm and submit an affidavit indicating the steps for demotion of these obstacles by August 19".

33. Candidate Cannot Complain Of Alleged Violations In Selection Process After Appearing For Interview: Bombay High Court

Case Title- Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

The Bombay High Court said that candidates aggrieved by violations of recruitment guidelines should raise their objections before appearing for the interview.

"It is well settled that a candidate who is called for the interview and takes part in the interview, cannot turn around and pick holes and contend that the selection process was conducted in violation of the guidelines", a division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar observed.

It thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of recruitment process of a co-operative bank and the appointments thereof.

The court also stated that the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 is not maintainable as the co-operative bank doesn't come under the definition of "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution.

34. Bombay High Court Concerned Over Unclean Toilets In State-Run Schools, Asks DLSAs To Conduct Surprise Inspection

Case Title - Nikita d/o Narayan Gore v. The Union of India

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 273

Unhappy with the Maharashtra Government's response on unhygienic conditions in toilets for young girls in state-government aided schools, the Bombay High Court said it will direct officers from the district legal service authorities to conduct surprise visits in these schools.

"What do they think of us? Are we little kids? Why has this been issued two days back. Our last order was issued on June 27," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta said.

The CJ was referring to a letter issued by the Department of School Education to the all the education officers and schools stating that the issue of toilets must be taken up by the respective schools' Parent Teacher Association and also for schools to clean the toilets.

35. Bombay High Court Directs National Board To Decide Couple's Plea To Import Cryo-Preserved Embryos From US Lab

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the National Board – constituted under the 2021 new Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (ART) and Surrogacy Act to decide a couple's plea to import their cryo-preserved embryo to India, stored in a laboratory in the United States since 2016.

A division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and SM Modak asked the couple in their 40s to appear before the board on August 1, 2022 and directed the board to decide the matter on its own merits.

36. Bombay High Court Disallows Maratha Community Candidates To Avail Retrospective Benefits Under EWS Category In MSEDCL Recruitment Drive

Case Title- Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. v. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. with connected matters

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

The Bombay High Court declared as "unjustified" and "Illegal" Maharashtra Government's decision to allow members of the Maratha community to avail benefits under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category midway through an electricity distribution recruitment drive.

The court said that Maratha community candidates (SEBC candidates) were aware that their selection process would be subject to Supreme Court's order in the Maratha Reservation matter.

So once SC's interim order barred them from being considered under the reserved category of MSEBC Act in 2020, the State couldn't have issued a GR permitting eligible candidates to be considered under the EWS reservation.

37. Govind Pansare Murder: Bombay High Court Directs Transfer Of Probe To Anti-Terrorism Squad

Case Title - Smita Pansare v. State of Maharashtra

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

The Bombay High Court directed the transfer of investigation into the 2015 murder of communist leader Govind Pansare from the Special investigations Team to the ATS's Anti-Terrorism Squad, seven years after the leader was shot at on his morning walk.

The bench observed that it has been monitoring the SIT's investigation in the case since 2016, but no major headway is made and sharpshooters are still absconding.

"Despite the efforts of the Officers of SIT, there is no breakthrough. The wait for the family of Comrade Pansare has been long, for almost seven years. There is a legitimate expectation not only for the family of Comrade Pansare, but also the public at large, to see that the perpetrators of the ghastly crime, are brought to book. And, this is the responsibility of the investigating machinery, which exists to preserve law and order."

38. S.143A NI Act | Court Not Obliged To Direct Payment Of Interim Compensation In Cheque Bounce Cases: Bombay High Court

Case Title- Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar v. Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

The Bombay High Court has said that courts don't have a duty to grant interim compensation to the complainant in a cheque bounce case. If interim compensation is granted, the judge has to record reasons for determining the amount of interim compensation.

The court said that the provisions of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directory rather than mandatory.

39. Bombay High Court Refuses Mentally Challenged Rape Victim To Terminate 35-Week Pregnancy Citing Health Risk

Case Title – Xyz v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors (WP 9012 of 2022)

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

The Bombay High Court has refused to allow a mentally challenged rape victim to terminate her 35-week (8.5 months) pregnancy after a board of medical experts opined it was a high risk to maternal health.

A division bench of Justices Gangapurwala and AS Doctor said that the court would be guided by the report of the Expert Committee, but since the pregnancy was a result of rape, certain directions were necessary:

The investigator should remain present at the time of delivery so that DNA samples can be collected soon after the delivery and be used during the trial.

If the child is born alive, the State should take care of the child in accordance with guideline under a 2019 landmark judgement on Medical Termination of Pregnancy.

40. Recovery Of Tax Dues Of A Company From Its Directors Under Section 179 Of Income TaxAct, Cannot Be Invoked Casually: Bombay High Court

Case Title - Rajendra R. Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

The Bombay High Court ruled that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the director of a public company, to recover the tax dues of the said company, is violative of the principles of natural justice, where the Income Tax Authority has failed to give any opportunity of hearing to the director before applying the principle of 'lifting the corporate veil'.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Abhay Ahuja, held that the recovery procedure under Section 179 against the directors of the assessee company cannot be resorted to casually.

41. Maharashtra Stamp Act | Collector Has No Power To Revise Stamp Duty Once It's Already Been Levied & Paid: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Sukoon Construction Pvt. Ltd v. The Collector of Stamp & Anr.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

Bombay High Court held that the Collector of Stamps under the Maharashtra Stamp Act cannot revise stamp duty once it has been levied and paid.

Justice Bharati Dangre while referring to the observed that in Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, once the Collector certifies an endorsement on the document depicting payment of full duty, it becomes effective and final and it is not open for him to reopen the adjudication.

The court held that the Collector had become "functus officio" after endorsing the deed and had no further powers to revise the duty. The power of revising the duty is, at the most, available with the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act.

42. Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under 'Service Exports From India' Scheme: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

The Bombay High Court ruled that the requirement of holding an Import Export Code (IEC) number at the time of rendering services in order to avail the benefits under the Services Export from India Scheme (SEIS), as imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (FTP), is against the intent and purpose of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act).

Court held that the eligibility criteria, as provided in Clause 3.08 (f) of the FTP, for availing the benefits under SEIS has imposed an additional restriction of having an IEC number at the time of rendering the services, which is not the intent or purport of the FTDR Act.

Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi held that the said condition cannot be termed as mandatory in nature for availing the benefits under the SEIS since it is against the principal legislation, i.e., the FTDR Act.

43. [Dowry Death] Dying Declaration Produced By Accused In-Laws Cannot Be Considered Without Authentication: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Vasant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 282

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held that before accepting a dying declaration brought on record, the Courts must scrutinize it closely as there is no opportunity to test its veracity by cross examination.

Justice Bharat Deshpande held that a dying declaration which has been recorded by the competent Magistrate, in proper manner, i.e., in the form of questions and answers and as far as possible practical in words of maker of declaration stands on much higher even than the dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all infirmities of human memory and human character.

44. INS Vikrant Cheating Case: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya, Son Niel After Prosecution Says 'No Proof'

Case Title – Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra and Niel Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to BJP leader Kirit Somaiya and his son, Neil, in a case alleging swindling of funds that were collected to save warship INS Vikrant.

Justice Bharati Dangre made absolute an earlier interim order granting them relief after the Mumbai Police represented by Senior Counsel Shirish Gupte submitted that no proof was found to substantiate allegations alleging swindling of nearly Rs. 57 crores.

45. Two Years After Nigerian's Arrest In NDPS Case Chemical Analyzer Admits "Mistake" In FSL Report, Says No Illicit Drugs Recovered

Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284

Even though state officials are considered supreme and in charge of law and order they are expected to act responsibly, the Bombay High Court said while granting bail to a Nigerian national, who spent almost two years in prison because of a chemical analyser's mistake.

The chemical analyser wrote to the Anti-Terrorism Squad earlier this year and clarified that no contraband was found in the items seized from the Nigerian in the year 2020, only pain killers and caffeine. He was from the forensic sciences laboratory in Kalina.

46. Assessee Eligible For SVLDRS Declaration Since The Demand Of Duty Quantified On Or Before June 30, 2019: Bombay High Court

Case Title: B. Chopda Construction Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 285

The Bombay High Court has allowed the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the grounds that although there was an audit, the amount of duty quantified has also been quantified before 30th June 2019.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Milind N. Jadhav has observed that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration on the ground that the final audit report was issued after June 30, 2019 was incorrect.

47. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Financing Attempt To Murder Mahesh Bhatt

Case Title – Obedullah Abdul Rashid Radiowala v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Obed Radiowala, a close aide of gangster Ravi Pujari and accused of arranging for finances for the attempt to murder producer Mahesh Bhatt in 2014.

Justice Bharati Dangre stated, "Prima facie in absence of concrete material leading to the guilt of the Applicant, merely on the allegation that sum of Rs.6 Lakh to Rs.7 Lakh was transferred to his brother's account, when there is already acquittal under the provisions of MCOC Act, further incarceration of the Applicant is unnecessary. He shall, however, face the trial."

Justice Dangre clarified that the trial court shouldn't be influenced by her observations and Radiowala should be tried for the alleged offence. She directed his release on furnishing a PR bond to the extent of Rs.50,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.

48. Bombay High Court Directs Grant Of Rs 2 Lakh Compensation To Nigerian National Jailed For 2 Years Due To Mistake In FSL Report

Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

Observing that liberty under Article 21 is also available to foreign citizens, the Bombay High Court today ordered compensation and granted bail to Nigerian national incarcerated in 2020 on the basis of an erroneous forensic report. Justice Bharti Dangre said that the applicant cannot be kept in detention merely because he is a foreign citizen and has criminal antecedents if there was no recovery of drugs under the NDPS Act.

The court suo motu directed the Maharashtra Government to pay the accused Rs. 2 lakh compensation within six weeks for wrongful incarceration after the state submitted that it doesn't have a policy for compensation.

49. Malwani Building Collapse: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Owner Who Lost 9 Family Members

Case Title – Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 288

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the owner of a building in Mumbai's Malwani area which collapsed last year, killing 9 of his own family members.

Justice Bharati Dangre held, "The applicant, in any case, cannot be attributed a rash and negligent act, resulting into the collapse of the building where he himself has lost his family members. He may face the consequences of the trial when the prosecution will establish and connect him to the grave and negligent act. However, at present, in the wake of the nature of the offence and the evidence collected by the prosecution and compiled in the charge-sheet, the applicant cannot be continued in detention and deserve his release on bail."

50. High Time Govt Uses E-filing System: Bombay High Court Declines To Take Hard Copies In 'Environmental PIL'

Case Title – Vanashakti & Anr v. Revenue & Forest Dept, State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

The Bombay High Court, observing that it was high time the State Government and its agencies started using the E-filing system invariably, refused to take hard copies of an affidavit in a case related to the environment.

Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse, observed, "It is incongruous that in an environmental PIL that seeks to protect wetlands, and filed by a social action group that seeks to protect forests, more and more paper is being used like this."

The bench directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar (Original Side), Registrar General and the Prothonotary & Senior Master to consider issuing appropriate directions or obtaining appropriate directions from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on the point of e-filing of documents.

51. [Order 7 Rule 11 CPC] Civil Court's Jurisdiction Not Ousted Where Procedure Prescribed In Particular Statute Not Followed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chirag R. Mehta v. The State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 290

The Bombay High Court held that the court's power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a drastic power and must be exercised carefully.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated in her order, "The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate the civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of power are stringent".

52. Bombay High Court Holds Special Hearing On Independence Day, Allows Badminton Player's Wild Card Entry In International Tournament

Case Title: Prathamesh v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 291

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court allowed badminton player Prathamesh Kulkarni a wild card entry in an international tournament to be held from August 30 at Pune.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Arun Pednekar held a special hearing on Independence Day due to paucity of time as the deadline for petitioner's name to be added to the final list of participants was 5 PM on August 15. The court had issued notice to respondents on August 12 and scheduled a special hearing on August 15.

53. Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 27 Evidence Act Not Legal Evidence Qua A Non-Maker Accused: Bombay High Court

Case title: Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 292

The Bombay High Court held that a disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not legal evidence qua a non-maker accused.

Justice N. J. Jamadar observed thus while granting bail to one Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta in a case registered against him under Section 307 of IPC [Attempt to murder].

54. Customs Authorities Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Before Expiry Of The Limitation Period For Filing An Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: S. J. Enterprises & Anr. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 293

The Bombay High Court reiterated that Customs Authorities cannot encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee before the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal.

Observing that the CBEC circular no. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 is binding on the Customs Authorities, the Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Sonak directed the Commissioner of Customs to ensure that there is no breach of the CBEC instructions or disobedience of judicial orders in the future.

55. Contract Discharged By Settlement – Dispute Under Contract Is A Deadwood; Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vishwajit Sud & Co. v. L & T Stec JV, Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 294

The Bombay High Court ruled that once a settlement is arrived at by the parties, the contract between the parties stands discharged by mutual agreement and hence, the dispute arising under the said contract is a deadwood which cannot be referred to arbitration.

Observing that a party who conceals or suppresses facts, including the factum of a settlement, is disentitled to relief under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that a party cannot be allowed to resurrect the dead issues and foist an unwarranted arbitration after the contract between them stood discharged by a complete accord and satisfaction in terms of the settlement agreement arrived between them.

56. Bombay High Court Reprimands Lawyer For Trying To Get Court Staff To Change Order

Case Title: Siddhi Real Estate Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 295

Bombay High Court expressed strong displeasure over an Advocate's conduct trying to get alterations in a judicial order through court staff. Court said that it is "conduct unbecoming" after the Private Secretary (PS) who had taken dictation in court informed that petitioner's advocate had requested to make certain alterations in the order. The court didn't take any strict action against the lawyer but put him on notice that he will face the "full brunt of law" if there is a single instance in the future.

57. Not Necessary To Refuse Bail In Every Case Of Economic Offence: Bombay High Court On Granting Relief To Vipul Chitalia In PNB Scam Case

Case Title: Vipul Chitalia v. CBI and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 296

The Bombay High Court ruled that bail cannot be refused to an accused merely because the offence is in nature of economic offence.

Justice Bharati Dangre on August 11 granted bail to Vipul Chitalia, former vice president (banking operations) of Gitanjali Group of Companies and observed, "Incarceration of the accused cannot be treated as synonymous with a punishment and assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty for a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused, before he is convicted of the charge framed against him."

58. Part-Occupancy Certificate Cannot Be Granted To New Buildings Without Water Connection, Lift: Bombay High Court To BMC

Case Title: Subodh M Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 297

Observing that water and power supply are the most basic amenities for habitation, the Bombay High Court cancelled part-Occupation Certificate (OC) granted for a fresh construction in Mumbai for the builder's failure to provide these facilities.

The court said there was an urgent need for policies that protect residents who are forced to move into newly constructed homes without a lift and water connection, and directed the civic body not to issue even part-OC to a building in such case.

59. Arbitral Tribunal Not Barred Under Section 79 Of The RERA Act From Passing An Order Of Injunction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ashok Palav Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Pankaj Bhagubhai Desai & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 298

The Bombay High Court ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal is not a Civil Court within the meaning and purview of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thus, the arbitral proceedings cannot be said to be barred under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).

The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that the bar of Section 79 of the RERA Act would not apply to an Arbitral Tribunal and thus, the Arbitral Tribunal is not barred from passing an order of injunction under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Court added that it can never be the intention of the legislature to elevate the status of the Arbitral Tribunal to that of a Civil Court or to construe the Arbitral Tribunal as an authority like a Civil Court.

60. Sheena Bora Murder: Approver Driver Shyamvar Rai Gets Bail From Bombay HC 7 Yrs. After Arrest

Case Title: Shyamwar Pinturam Rai v. CBI, Special Crime-1 & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 299

Bombay High Court granted bail to Shyamvar Rai, CBI's star witness in the Sheena Bora murder case nearly seven years after his arrest. Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to Rai on the same bail conditions as co-accused Sanjeev Khanna, who was granted bail in June, this year.

Rai, who was the driver of prime accused and socialite Indrani Mukerjea was first to be arrested in the case. Subsequently he was declared an approver by the Special CBI court in 2016 and deposed as a prosecution witness. He had written to the court in 2015 saying he wanted to "tell the truth about the Sheena Bora murder case."

61. Insurance Ombudsman Performs Quasi-Judicial Functions While Deciding Complaints; Award Can Be Challenged Under Article 227: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Insurance Ombudsman & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

Observing that the Insurance Ombudsman is like a tribunal while deciding a complaint, the Bombay High Court held that an insurance company can challenge Insurance Ombudsman's award before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Justice G. S. Kulkarni disagreed with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an award passed by the Ombudsman would not be maintainable. The court observed, "It thus may not be an acceptable proposition that merely because Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 17 provides that an award shall be binding on the insurer, the insurer would be precluded from assailing the award by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 being a remedy as guaranteed by the Constitution, more particularly, being an adjudication governed by statutory rules as noted above."

62. Rape Convict's Advanced Age & Regular Attendance In Court No Reason For Lesser Sentence Than Minimum Punishment Under Law: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Madhukar Makaji Mudgul v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

The Bombay High Court held that a rape convict's advanced age and regular attendance in court hearings cannot be a reason for a lesser sentence than the minimum punishment under law. The court enhanced the prison sentence of a man who raped his deaf and mute sister-in-law in 2005.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav stated, "Once the trial court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had squarely proved the offence of rape committed by the accused on the victim beyond reasonable doubt, then there is no reason to defer from the statutory provision and award a lesser sentence than what is prescribed by the statute."

63. Law Considers Women As 'Weaker Section' Of Society Requiring More Protection: Bombay High Court While Transferring Matrimonial Case

Case Title: Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul Phadtare

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

The Bombay High Court observed that law considers woman as belonging to weaker section of society and her inconvenience needs to be prioritized.

Justice S. M. Modak in his order in a matrimonial case observed, "Even though this reason may be of some importance, the fact that the Applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.171 of 2022 is a lady, her inconvenience needs to be given more priority because the law considers woman as class belonging to weaker section of society and needs more protection."

64. Mere Erroneous Application Of Law; Award Need Not Be Set Aside: Bombay High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

The Bombay High Court reiterated that when the court is convinced that the Arbitrator has erred only on specific issues and that the arbitral award is otherwise sustainable, the court is not mandatorily required to set aside the entire award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that though the arbitral award granting interest to land owners on enhanced compensation from the date of the notification for acquisition, and not from the date of taking possession, is contrary to the mandate of Section 3H (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA); however, it constituted a mere erroneous application of the law and hence, the award cannot be said aside on the said ground.

65. Sea Link Toll Collection: Bombay HC Deprecates Trend Of Ineligible Bidders Approaching Court, Upholds Disqualification Of MEP Infra

Case title: MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

The Bombay High Court observed that it has become a trend for 'ineligible' bidders of contracts to try and arouse the court's conscience claiming their bids were more financially viable for the State. However, such financial bids shouldn't even be considered and must be rejected outright if the company doesn't meet the technical criteria for the contract.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik held, "...we may unhesitatingly refer to a common trend of ineligible bidders offering a lower/higher bid than the eligible bidders and then raising a plea of how the "State" would have benefited financially if its bid were accepted to arouse judicial conscience to prevent unnecessary drainage from the public exchequer. Unmeritorious pleas such as these ought not to detain us for a moment and deserve outright rejection, which we hereby do,".

66. Bombay High Court Directs Demolition Over 100-Year-Old Dilapidated Widows Hostel Building In Mumbai

Case Title: Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

Bombay High Court upheld a demolition order of an over 100-year-old dilapidated C-1 category building in Mumbai that was home to widows from the Parsi community.

A division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata ruled that the seven tests to check the building's strength under BMC's 2018 guidelines were not mandatory for load bearing structures like the present one and the guidelines would apply only to cement concrete (RCC) structures.

"..the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) thus rightly formed an opinion that the non-destructive test and other tests were not required to be carried out in view of the structure being a load bearing structure. We do not find any infirmity in this view taken by the TAC", the court held.

67. [S.14 SARFAESI Act] Jurisdiction Of DM Purely Ministerial In Nature; Not Empowered To Hear Borrower/ Third Parties: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

Observing that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate (DM) is limited only to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, the Bombay High Court held that the DM isn't empowered to hear the borrower or third parties while deciding application filed by secured creditor.

"Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not contemplate much less empower the DA to even consider much less adjudicate upon any objections raised by Borrower or anybody else", a division bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice A. S. Doctor held.

68. Touching Child's Private Parts With Sexual Intent Sufficient To Attract POCSO Act, Absence Of Injury Not Relevant: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

Bombay High Court held that touching the private parts of a child with sexual intent is enough for it to be construed as sexual assault under section 7 of the POCSO Act and a medical certificate demonstrating an injury is not mandatory.

Justice Sarang Kotwal held, "The absence of injury mentioned in the medical certificate will not make any difference to her case because the very nature of the offence of sexual assault defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act mentions that even touching private part with sexual intent is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act."

69. Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act- Incidental To Recovery Of Possession Of Property; Small Causes Court Alone Would Have Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: BXIN Office Parks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kailasa Urja Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 308

The Bombay High Court ruled that reliefs which are incidental to the possession of the licensed premises cannot be sought in an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in view of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act).

Justice G.S. Kulkarni reiterated that the bar contained in Section 41 of the PSCC Act applies not only to a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property but also to all other incidental reliefs which can be claimed by a party in a suit for recovery of possession and hence, the jurisdiction to grant such incidental reliefs would also lie with the Small Causes Court.

70. Customers Cannot Suffer Due To Your Technical Glitches Of Revenue Department, States Division Bench Of Bombay High Court To Chief Controlling Revenue

Case Title: Anand I Power Ltd. v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

The Bombay High Court directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) to adjust the amount of Stamp Duty paid by the Petitioner in the General stamp head amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- in the proper head, as the payment of the same was not being acknowledged by the CCRA.

Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar called the case a "classic illustration of the litigants facing problems due to technical glitches" and noted that the petitioner did not show any intention to flout the orders of the CCRA. "If according to the Respondents the amount was not deposited in the proper account, it could have refunded the amount to the Petitioner so as to redeposit the same in the proper account or the said Authority itself would have transferred the same to the proper account, as the communication was in the same financial year", the court observed.

71. Company In Liquidation Cannot Always Avoid Proceedings U/S 138 NI Act, Its Conduct Can Be Weighed In: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nizar Noorali Rangara and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 310

Bombay High Court held that to determine whether a complaint under section 138 can be entertained when the company is in the process of winding up, the fact and circumstance of each case have to be considered. The question cannot be considered without the facts especially to "insulate a company and its ex-directors from the rigors of law where it appears that they profess to take advantage of their own wrong".

Justice N. J. Jamadar further observed that a winding up order due to settlement terms is not on the same pedestal as winding up order passed on merits

72. Implicitly Admitted Liability Does Not Prevent Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration If Arbitration Agreement Exists: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)

Case Title: USP Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Ganpati Enterprises & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 311

The Bombay High Court held that impliedly admitted liability cannot prevent reference of dispute to arbitration. Justice N. J. Jamadar further held that judicial authority must make a reference to arbitration if even a semblance of dispute exists between two parties who have an arbitration agreement.

73. Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court

Case title: Relcon Infroprojects Ltd. & Anr. v. Ridhi Sidhi Sadan, Unit of Shree Ridhi Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 312

The Bombay High Court ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the disputes to arbitration is issued by a party, the Court is not barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act for interim measures. The Court added that it is not constrained to refer the parties to arbitration and convert the proceedings under Section 9 into an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act, to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal.

Justice G.S. Kulkarni reiterated that when an application under Section 9 has already been taken up for consideration, the question of examining whether the remedy under Section 17 is efficacious or not would not arise.

74. Registrar Didn't Act Independently: Bombay HC Sets Aside Govt Order Removing NCP Members From Jalgaon Milk Union's Managing Committee

Case title – Jagdish Lahu Badhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 313

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside an order removing 14 members of elected managing committee of the Jalgaon Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.

"DDR has passed the impugned order not only in the absence of any ground or by resorting to any enquiry by following the principles of natural justice but even has passed it mala fide with an ulterior motive to oblige the Government", the court observed.

75. Bombay High Court Directs CBIC To Issue Clarification Regarding Distribution/ Reporting Of ISD Credit

Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 314

The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification in relation to the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

The Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Gauri Godse was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

76. Bombay High Court Overturns Dacoity Conviction Citing Lapses In Arrangement Of Test Identification Parade By The Police

Case title: Sunil Vishnu Mukane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 315

The Bombay High Court overturned conviction of four accused in a dacoity case observing that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable due to irregularities in arranging the test identification parade.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal held "In this particular case in view of these infirmities, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. There are no other incriminating circumstances against the appellants".

The court noted the strong possibility that the prosecution witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused before the test identification parade. The prosecution has to rule out that possibility, which was not done. Further the prosecution didn't prove that the witnesses didn't see the dummies brought by the police for the identification. "If the witnesses had an opportunity to see the dummies before the test identification parade; then it was very easy to identity the accused", the court observed.

The court further observed that sixteen dummies were asked to take part in one single identification parade for four accused. Proper procedure stipulates six dummies per accused and no more than two accused in a single identification parade.

77. SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax & Anr. with 11 connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 316

The Bombay High Court held that the dues of a secured creditor would rank superior to the dues of a state government department on sale of secured asset.

A full bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice N. J. Jamadar answered seven questions of law related to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDDB Act).

The court further held that Chapter IV-A of SARFAESI Act is prospective and will apply from the date it was brought into force, i.e., 24th January 2020.

The court held that a secured creditor cannot invoke section 31B of the RDDB Act to claim priority if it is disabled from obtaining 'priority' under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act for want of CERSAI registration.

The court overruled para 21 of division bench decision in ASREC (India) Limited v. State of Maharashtra. ASREC and paragraph 35 of the division bench decision in SBI v. State of Maharashtra

The court held that the priority under RDDB Act and SARFAESI Act wouldn't apply if the immovable property of the defaulter is attached and proclamation issued in accordance with law before Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act or section 31B of the RDDB Act were enforced.

78. Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A 'Person Or Institution' Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317

The Bombay High Court ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act does not include the application required to be filed under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act before the High Court for seeking appointment of arbitrator(s).

Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that a Commercial Court can never be regarded as a "person or institution" under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act, and that the term "any person or institution" would not include a Court exercising any judicial power.

79. Caste Certificate - Ordinary Residence Of Applicant Cannot Be Determined In A Summary Enquiry: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that the question of ordinary residence of a person for the purpose of verifying caste certificate cannot be determined without a Vigilance Cell inquiry and providing the person an opportunity to submit evidence.

The court held that the question whether an applicant is ordinary resident of the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authority is a question of fact and has to be decided by granting the applicant necessary opportunity to prove it.

The court further observed that Rule 14 of the 2012 Rules prohibits verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee when such caste certificate is issued to a migrant from another State. "A caste certificate issued to a claimant by an Authority other than one from the State of Maharashtra cannot be verified", the court stated.

80. Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court

Case title: Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde, Proprietor Creative Infotech

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319

The Bombay High Court held that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied.

Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the opposite party's website, which included an arbitration agreement, was sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause between them.

81. [MP Mohan Delkar Suicide] Bombay High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator & 8 Others

Case Title: Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320

The Bombay High Court quashed FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other authorities for allegedly abetting suicide of Mohan Delkar, seven times Member of Parliament (MP) of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The court observed that to attract Section 120 (B) IPC, there must be positive material to show that the accused persons came together for hatching a conspiracy and effect was given to that conspiracy. There must a positive act for satisfying the word abetment in order to charge someone for abetment of suicide. However, the material in the FIR doesn't satisfy any of these requirements.

82. [MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321

The Bombay High Court held that courts should refrain from interfering in results of examinations as judicial intervention affects all candidates and not just the parties seeking relief.

"Indeed, we would venture to suggest that except in the most exceptional circumstances, there should not be such interim interventions by a Court for the simple reason that allowing the benefit to even a single candidate (let alone 250) irredeemably alters the balance in regard to the other candidates who have managed to cross the qualifying threshold criteria", the court stated.

Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse dismissed three writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) order upholding the decision to delete certain questions from a recruitment exam conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC).

83. [Section 110A Customs Act] Owner Does Not Include Importer Of Goods: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 322

The Bombay High Court held that seized goods can only be provisionally released under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 in favour of the owner of the goods and no one else.

"The said section does not include or envisage release of goods provisionally in favour of an importer of goods much less does it envisage, a release in favour of 'any person', in addition to the owner as mentioned in Section 124 of the Act, who has been served a notice under the said section", the court held.

84. Bombay High Court Directs State To Conduct Public Prosecutor Exam In Marathi Also

Case Title: Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

The Bombay High Court directed the state government to conduct the exam for recruitment of public prosecutors in English as well as Marathi language.

The direction would not be applicable for the upcoming exam to be conducted by MPSC on 11^th September but for subsequent examinations.

85. Morals & Ethics Can't Form Basis For Conviction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act, Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Mandatory: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sayaji Dashrath Kawade v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 324

The Bombay High Court held that a person cannot be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA) on the basis of morals and ethics. The basic requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice S. D. Kulkarni overturned the conviction in a criminal appeal observing –

"The corruption is spreading like cancer in our great nation. The disease of the corruption has been with us since long time. The common man is facing this rampant corruption, but a person for the charges of corruption under the Act cannot be convicted on moral and ethics. When the law provides certain mandatory requirements for proving offence, no shortcut is permitted."

86. Candidates Born In Maharashtra But Completed 10th/ 12th From Outside Due To Parent's Army Posting Entitled To State Quota In Admissions: High Court

Case Title: Priya Kedar Gokhale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

The Bombay High Court read down rule for Maharashtra quota reservation with respect to admission in 5-year law program in the State for candidates who are born/ domiciled in Maharashtra but who could not complete their 10th/ 12th from the State on account of their parent's army posting.

The court stated that the condition of passing 10th and 12th standard from Maharashtra may not be unreasonable, however, relaxation should be made for cases where the candidate does not have a choice, such as the service conditions of the parents due to which they are posted throughout the country in the service of the nation.

87. God Is Not A Fiefdom Of Ruling Party: Bombay High Court Cancels Appointment Of Managing Committee Of Sai Baba Shirdi Trust

Case title: Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 326

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench quashed the appointment of the managing committee of the Sai Baba Shirdi Trust observing that trustees to a public trust must be appointed for the betterment of devotees and not for the "ruling government to accommodate their party workers or politicians".

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Mehare held that the committee chaired by MLA Ashutosh Kale was illegally appointed by the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi led government in 2021, violating provisions of the special Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004 as well as directions of the court.

88. "Wife Knows Husband's Salary": Bombay HC Enhances Compensation To Driver's Kin Under Employees' Compensation Act Sans Salary Slip In 19 Yr Old Case

Case title: Sunita and Ors v. Sandipan Dyanoba Tathapare and Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench enhanced compensation awarded to a deceased truck driver's kin under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 relying on the oral testimony of the wife.

Justice SG Dige observed that the labour court wrongly discarded the wife's evidence in the absence of a salary slip in a 19-year-old-case.

89. Bombay High Court Orders Inquiry Into Father's Allegations That Police Prosecuted His Minor Son For Murder As Adult On Failure To Offer Bribe

Case Title: Vikas Ramji Yadav Through Ramji Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

Bombay High Court ordered an inquiry to be conducted into a father's allegations that his son was being wrongfully treated as an adult in a murder case despite being a juvenile.

Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Madhav Jamdar passed the order in a petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus for release or production of the petitioner detained at the Thane Central Prison.

The court directed the Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the father against the Police Inspector (PI) investigating the case.

90. Approval Granted By Pune Municipal Corporation To Straighten Ambil Odha Stream Valid: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kishor Manohar Kamble and Anr v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

The Bombay High Court held that the approval granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Vigilance) to straighten the Ambil Odha stream is valid as it is in line with the Town Development Scheme of 1989.

Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar dismissed two writ petitions challenging the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation to straighten the Ambil Odha stream flowing through the city of Pune.

91. 'Anath' Not Stigmatic: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL To Change Nomenclature For Orphans In Govt Records

Case Title: Swanath Foundation v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to change the nomenclature for an orphan in Government records from "anath" to "swanath" or self-made observing that there was no stigma attached to the word "anath".

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar said that courts must be alive to the laxman rekha within which they must function.

92. [Debt Recovery] Service Of Summons Mandatory, Not Dispensed With Party Entering Appearance By Filing Vakalatnama: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sunil Gupta and Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

The Bombay High Court held that the appearance of an Advocate and filing of a Vakalatnama does not do away with the requirement to serve summons in a debt recovery application observing that serving of summons is a mandatory procedural requirement.

The court held that even assuming that requirement of service of summons was fulfilled, the order is still an ex-parte order as the advocate stopped appearing before the tribunal. There are sufficient grounds to set aside the order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.

93. Bombay High Court Allows Agisilaos Demetriades' Plea To Quash Preventive Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act

Case Title: Agisilaos Demetriades v. The Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

The Bombay High Court quashed a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, issued against Agisilaos Demetriades - brother of actor Arjun Rampal's girlfriend - after he claimed that certain documents were provided to him in Hindi, a language he doesn't understand.

94. It Is The Bonafide Mistake Of Taxpayer Paying To Railways Instead Of GST Department: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Arun Krishnachandra Goswami v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

The Bombay High Court directed that the amounts which have been wrongly paid to railways by the petitioner should be paid to the CGST authorities and SGST authorities within two weeks.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor noted that the taxpayer has made a mistake and instead of paying the Government of India through the CGST authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the SGST authorities, the entire amount was paid to the Government of India through Indian Railways.

95. S.155 Maha Land Revenue Code | Tehsildar Can Correct Revenue Records During Pendency Of Acquisition Proceedings

Case Title: Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar, Kamptee and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that Tehsildar has the jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to correct status of land in the revenue record which may substantially impact the amount of compensation, even if acquisition proceedings are pending before the High Court.

"The proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are clearly independent proceedings and if they aid in determining just and fair compensation to land owners, then it cannot be said that the proceedings could not have been initiated or the orders passed by the Tahsildar deserved to be set aside, merely because proceedings pertaining to the determination of quantum of compensation are pending before this Court", Justice Manish Pitale observed in his order.

96. 'Utter Lack of Objectivity': Bombay High Court On CWCD's Refusal To Renew Licenses of 57 Child Care Homes

Case Title: Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner of Women and Child Development (CWCD) can't refuse renewal of licenses without hearing or opportunity to correct defects to applicants. CWCD had outrightly rejected licence renewal proposals of at-least 57 NGOs under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, without a hearing or giving them an opportunity to correct their defects.

A division bench of Justices Magesh Patil and Sandeep Marne at Aurangabad directed the CWCD to re-consider proposals of at least nine NGOs who approached the court.

97. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Conducts Sensitive Research In Nuclear Science: Bombay HC Upholds Rejection Of Candidature Citing Criminal Antecedents

Case title: Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

The Bombay High Court upheld cancellation of a man's candidature for a post at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for non-disclosure of a criminal case against him observing that honesty and integrity are the inherent requirements in public employment.

Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature for a post at the BARC.

98. Prima Facie Deep Involvement With RDF & Maoist Activities: Bombay High Court Refuses Bail To DU Professor Hany Babu In Elgar Parishad Case

Case title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 337

the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to Delhi University Professor Hany Babu accused in Elgar Parishad case observing that mobilising rallies and co-ordinating the defence of convicted professor GN Saibaba was not just helping a fellow academic, but prima facie following a leftist handbook.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar said that their opinion about Babu not just being a mere sympathiser but being someone who was given substantial responsibility, at RDF, an alleged front organisation, was based on broad probabilities.

99. Bombay High Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Portions of Union Minister Narayan Rane's Residence Within Two Weeks

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 338

The Bombay High Court refused to direct BMC to consider regularising 300% additional construction at Union Minister Narayan Rane's Juhu residence. The court gave two weeks to demolish the illegal portions.

Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata said that the corporation is "bent upon" considering the application (for regularisation) irrespective of the provisions of law. However, allowing the petition would be "encouragement" of wholesome unauthorised construction.

100. Employee Deemed To Be Suspended Due To Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Back Wages Upon Acquittal, Unless Suspension Wholly Unjustified: Bombay HC

Case Title: Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

The Bombay High Court held that an employee deemed to be suspended due to criminal charges is not entitled to back wages despite his acquittal as a deemed suspension is not a discretionary decision and cannot be considered unjustified.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nitin W. Sambre dismissed a writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order upholding Disciplinary Authority's decision to not grant the petitioner back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension.

101. Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School

Case Title: Govind Ramrao Solanke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 340

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court refused to allow petitioner to change his date of birth in the school record stating that only obvious errors can be corrected after the student has left the school.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pednekar refused to entertain a writ petition praying for change in date of birth in the school record after he had left the school.

102. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bollywood Actor Armaan Kohli In Drug Case

Case Title: Armaan Kohli v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 341

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Bollywood actor Armaan Kohli in an illicit drug traffic case. Justice Nitin W. Sambre directed that Kohli be released on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties.

103. Category For Premature Release More Beneficial To Convict Will Apply If Case Falls Under Two Different Categories Within Same Guidelines: Bombay HC

Case Title: Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342

The Bombay High Court held that number of persons who committed the murder is irrelevant in cases related to trade union activities while categorizing the case for the purpose of premature release of life convicts. Even assuming that it falls under both the categories, the more beneficial category will apply to the petitioner's case.

"What is relevant is murder should have been committed as a result of trade union activities and therefore, whether murder has been committed by more than one person/group of persons is totally irrelevant", the court held.

104. Air India Privatisation: Bombay HC Says Writ Petitions Against Airline No Longer Maintainable

Case Title: R. S. Madireddy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 343

The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions filed by employees against Air India Limited (AIL) are no longer maintainable due to subsequent privatisation of AIL even though they were maintainable at the inception of the case. The change in the status of the 'authority' against whom the writ was initially claimed plays a significant role in determining the issue of maintainability, said the court.

105. Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Change In Date Of Birth In School Record After Student Left the School

Case Title: Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court granted protection to a retired Junior Assistant (Class II officer) against recovery of excess salary and benefits erroneously paid to him by the Water Resources Department of the Government of Maharashtra during his service.

"We have two very strong reasons in the present case for arriving at a conclusion that the recovery would be arbitrary, viz. unduly long period of 23 years of recovery and retirement of the petitioner", the court held.

106. Mere Reference To Proposal Containing An Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Signed By One Party, Would Not Amount To An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. TCI Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Kirby Building Systems (Uttaranchal) Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 345

The Bombay High Court has ruled that in an agreement executed by both the parties which contains independent terms and conditions, a mere reference to a proposal containing an arbitration clause which was unilaterally signed by one party, would not amount to an arbitration agreement coming into existence between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that for an arbitration agreement to come into existence, there must be a document incorporating an arbitration clause or agreement which is executed by both the parties, showing a consensus ad-idem between them.

107. S.24 HMA | Divorce Decree Granted Without Deciding Application For Maintenance Pendente Lite: Bombay HC Remands Case Back To Family Court

Case Title: Chanda v. Prakashsingh Rathod

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 346

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has remanded a divorce case back to the family court after the family court granted divorce without deciding interim application for maintenance pendente lite filed by the wife.

"The directions are also required to be issued to the trial Court to decide the interim application preferred by the appellant for maintenance pendente lite in accordance with the provision of Hindu Marriage Act", the court said.

108. Bombay HC Full Bench Quashes Notices Transferring 'Cherry Picked' NGT Cases From Goa to Delhi

Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. NGT & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 347

A full bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed administrative notices issued by the Registrar General of the National Green Tribunal "cherry picking" cases relating to Goa from the Western Zone bench at Pune and transferring them to the Northern bench at New Delhi.

Making various observations on the lack of clarity about the reasons why it was being done as well as the lack of jurisdiction for doing so, the full bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justices Gautam Patel and M S Sonak also called the notices violative of Article 14 and suffering "from the impermissible vice of manifest arbitrariness."

109. 'Navratri A Festival Dear To People': Bombay High Court Junks PIL Challenging Falguni Pathak's Program At Sports Ground

Case title: Vinayak Yasvant Sanap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

The Bombay High Court dismissed a journalist's PIL against the commercial exploitation of a recreational ground in Kandivali for holding singer Falguni Pathak's annual Navratri program between September 26 to October 5.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, under which the permission was granted, was not challenged. Under the Section, the planning authority is allowed to temporarily change the usage of the public ground for commercial exploitation.

110. Watchmen In Aided Private Ashram Schools Entitled To Equal Pay Scale As Those In Govt Ashram Schools: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court recently directed the state government to extend the pay scale of watchmen in government Ashram Schools to temporary watchmen in private aided Ashram Schools, relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The court held that the petitioners are required to be granted minimum pay in the pay scale admissible for the post of Watchmen/security guards/multitasking staff engaged in the government ashram schools.

111. Bombay HC Paves Way For Uddhav Thackeray Led Shiv Sena To Hold Dussehra Rally At Shivaji Park, Rejects Shinde Faction's Intervention

Case Title: The Shiv Sena v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 350

The Bombay High Court on Friday allowed Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena to hold the party's annual Dussehra rally at Shivaji Park on October 5, 2022.

The court set aside BMC's order refusing permission and directed the civic body to grant permission from October 2-6, 2022.

A division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also rejected the intervention application filed by Sada Sarvankar, sitting MLA from Shinde faction opposing the petition, stating that Sarvankar has no locus in the case.

112. Cannot Recover 'Excess Retiral Benefits' After Allowing Officer To Continue Beyond Retirement Date: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351

The Bombay High Court granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) whose pension and gratuity was reduced by the local body after a government clarification said only public health department doctors were to be given extension of two years in service beyond the date of retirement. The court directed the TMC to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner. The court also restrained the TMC from recovering any further amount from the petitioner's pension.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the decision in a writ petition challenging reduction in pension and gratuity and recovery of excess payment from his retiral benefits.

113. Half of Life Imprisonment Is 10 Years for POCSO Offences: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352

The Bombay High Court sentenced a convict to one half of life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, who will have to undergo a sentence of 10-years.

Justice Sarang Kotwal held that since life imprisonment was not defined under the POCSO Act, the definition of life imprisonment under section 57 of the Indian Penal Code would apply.

The section provides that for calculating a fraction or part of an entire sentence, life imprisonment would be equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.

"Thus, half of life imprisonment in such cases would mean imprisonment for ten years," Justice Kotwal observed while disposing off the petition.

114. State's Obligation To Protect Citizens From Wild Animal Attacks, Any Injury Caused Is Govt's Failure: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

Stating that while it is the duty of the State government to protect wild animals and not allow them wander outside the restricted zone, the Bombay High Court Monday said it is also obligatory upon the state to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals.

A division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse ruled that it is a twin obligation of the State Government to protect wild animals and the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. "If any wild animal causes injury to any person, this in fact is a failure of the State Government to protect right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the court held.

115. Reference Made Under MSMED Act; District Court Has Power To Extend Mandate Or Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A Of A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which enables the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator or substitute the Arbitrator, would be applicable to the reference made under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that since there is no provision under the MSMED Act to extend the mandate of the arbitrator or substitute the arbitrator, hence, if the provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act are made inapplicable to the reference made under the MSMED Act, it would render the arbitral scheme under the MSMED Act otiose.

116. Daughter Making Monetary Demand From Father Not Meant To Abet His Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

Case title: Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of abetting her father's suicide, observing that it is unlikely that she demanded money from him with the purpose of driving him to commit suicide.

Justice Manish Pitale and Justice G. A. Sanap allowed a writ petition for quashing of FIR and observed that it would be 'stretching things a bit far' to conclude that the accused, through her mother, intentionally drove her father to commit suicide.

117. Actor Ajaz Khan Prima Facie Connected To Subsequent Recoveries: Bombay HC Refuses Bail Despite Possession of Small Quantity Contraband

Case Title: Ajaz Mohammad Shaf Khan v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 356

The Bombay High Court rejected bail plea of Bollywood actor Ajaz Khan in an alleged financing of illicit drug trade case despite recovery of small quantity of contraband from him, on the ground that his role in the conspiracy was revealed by statements of witnesses and co-accused.

Justice Bharti Dangre said that he is connected to recovery of commercial quantity from the co-accused.

118. Liquor License Can't Be Suspended Citing Family Dispute Between Legal Heirs After Death Of License Holder In Partnership: Bombay HC

Case Title: Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Anr. v. The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 357

A dispute between legal heirs cannot be a ground to suspend the liquor license held in the name of a deceased partner of a firm under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and rules thereunder, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held while quashing the order passed by Collector of State Excise.

Justice Manish Pitale relied on two circulars which stated that licenses should be temporarily renewed subject to the outcome of the dispute, if a valid application is made by even one of the disputing partners with proper compliance.

119. Bombay HC Dismisses Plea By Jiah Khan's Mother Seeking Fresh Investigation Into Actress' Death

Case Title: Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358

The Bombay High Court dismissed Rabia Khan's petition seeking fresh investigation into her daughter and Bollywood actress Jiah Khan's suicide by the stating that CBI has carried out a 'fair, impartial, and transparent' probe into the case in a 'thorough' manner.

The court said that Rabia Khan is trying to delay the trial by repeatedly filing petitions having identical grounds and prayers. The court strongly deprecated the repeated filing of proceedings by the petitioner for the same cause of action.

120. Limitation Period Starts After Affixing Signatures On GST Registration Cancellation Order: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359

The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.

"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.

The court observed that unless a digital signature is put by the issuing authority, the order will have no effect in the eyes of the law.

121. 'Demolished Without Hearing Fisherfolk' - Bombay High Court Directs Mumbai Suburban Collector To Reconstruct Crematorium

Case Title: Chetan Vyas v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 360

The Bombay High Court has directed the District Collector Mumbai Suburban to reconstruct a decades-old crematorium on Erangal Beach in Mumbai which was earlier demolished for alleged Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violations without hearing the local fisherfolk who built it.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar noted that the crematorium was in existence even before the CRZ notification of February 18, 1991 and therefore quashed Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)'s order declaring it illegal.

122. Dandiya And Garba Can Be Performed Without Loudspeakers And DJ Sound, Celebrate Navratri In Traditional Way: Bombay High Court To RWA

Case Title: Pawan Shamsundar Sarda and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 361

Granting permission to Ramdaspeth Plot Owners and Residents Association to organize its Navratri festival including dandiya and garba performances in a silence zone, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court said the religious celebration can still be performed in a purely traditional and religious way.

"Dandiya and Garba performances being intrinsic part of a religious celebration can still be performed in purely traditional and religious way, which do not contemplate use of modern gadgets like, music system, loudspeakers, DJ sound and the like", the court said.

A division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Govind Sanap passed the order in a writ petition objecting to the organization of Navratra Festival wherein the petitioners are apprehending playing of loud music on DJ causing loud noise harmful to humans.

123. Air India Employees' Accommodation: Bombay HC Directs Centre To Take 'Fresh Decision' On Reference Of Dispute To Industrial Tribunal

Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362

The Bombay High Court held that if the Government declines reference of a dispute to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, it must do so based on a final, and not prima facie satisfaction that no industrial dispute arises in the case.

The court held that the decision of the Central Government not to refer a dispute between Air India employees and Air India Ltd. regarding vacation of their allotted residences to the Tribunal was patently illegal and without application of mind as it not recorded r.

The court noted that the government held the demands of the joint committee to be 'extraneous' and declined to refer the dispute to the tribunal without giving the reasoning behind this conclusion.

124. Bombay HC Full Bench Accepts Apology From Adv Mathews Nedumpara, Discharges Contempt Notice

Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363

The Bombay High Court discharged a 2017 contempt notice against Advocate Mathews Nedumpara after accepting his "bona fide, unconditional and unqualified" apology.

"We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself, and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required," a full bench of Justices Gautam Patel, MS Karnik and Bharati Dangre observed.

125. Reliance On Evidence Filed After Conclusion Of Hearing; Award Is Patently Illegal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 364

The Bombay High Court ruled that where the only documentary material relied upon by the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, is introduced on record surreptitiously and after the conclusion of hearing, the arbitral award is vitiated on account of patent illegality.

The Single Bench of Justice Rohit B. Deo held that the power of the court under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to remand the matter back to the arbitrator is discretionary, which must be exercised judiciously and only in appropriate cases. The Court added that where the integrity of the arbitral proceedings was compromised, and crucial evidence was introduced on record after conclusion of hearing, it was not an appropriate case to exercise discretion under Section 34 (4).

126. Bombay High Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Portions Of Former BJP MLA Narendra Mehta's Hotel

Case Title: Faiyyaz Mullaji v. Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 365

The Bombay High Court ordered demolition of substantial portions of former BJP MLA Narendra Mehta's Seven Eleven Hotel in Mira Road.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik allowed the PIL filed by one Faiyyaz Mullahji and directed all construction beyond 0.2 FSI to be demolished by Mehta within two months.

127. 'Why Are You Encroaching On Others' Rights': Bombay High Court on PIL Seeking Ban on Advertising Non-Veg Food

Case Title: Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366

The Bombay High Court questioned the Jain religious bodies, who were seeking a ban on advertising of non-vegetarian food items, as to why they were encroaching on someone else's right by making the demand.

"There is no law that provides this. You are asking us to frame law. And what about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution? Why are you encroaching on other's rights?," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed and granted the three trusts liberty to withdraw the petition and come with "better particulars and appropriate prayers."

128. 'Directions May Be Passed On Administrative Side': Bombay High Court On PIL For Timely Recording Of POCSO Victim's Testimony

Case Title: Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367

The Bombay High Court directed a public interest litigant seeking proper enforcement of POCSO Act, to approach the High Court Committee on POCSO matters, with his suggestions.

The petition sought directions to the Special Courts to ensure that the testimony of the minor victim is recorded within one month, as per Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act. The ad-hoc committee overseeing POCSO matters comprises of Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Bharati Dangre.

The petition challenged non-compliance of Section 35 of the POCSO Act read with section 309 of CrPC and the directions of Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Shrivastava v. Union of India. The PIL also sought a direction to all Special POCSO Courts for a time bound conclusion of cases.