Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 22 - August 28, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 302-309]

1. 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 last week transferred a matrimonial case observing that law considers women as belonging to weaker section of society and her inconvenience needs to be prioritized.

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

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

The Bombay High Court has 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 (A&C Act).

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.

3. 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

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

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

6. 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 Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

Merely 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, the Bombay High Court has held.

7. 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

The Bombay High Court has 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).

The Single Bench of 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.

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

Bombay High Court Snubs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority To Not Only Adjust The Stamp Duty Paid But Also Directed Them Stating That The Power Company Is Not Liable To Pay A Wrong Penalty

A precedent is laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench of His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Shri S.V. Gangapurwala and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Shri Madhav J. Jamdar vide their order dated 22^nd August, 2022 have directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e. the Respondent in the said matter to adjust the amount of Stamp Duty paid by the Petitioner in the General stamp head i.e. Anand I Power amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Fourty Lakh Only) in the proper head, as the payment of the same was not being acknowledged by the Respondents, instead they were asking for a penalty of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) from the Petitioner. Managing Partner of Solicis Lex Advisory Mr Ameet Mehta stated that "The Division Bench vide the said order not only directed the Government Authority to adjust the amount but also directed that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any penalty and snubbed the Revenue Authorities".