Weekly Round-Up Jan17- Jan 231. Senior Citizens Act: Bombay High Court Refuses Relief To Son Who Became Mother's Tenant & Dishoused Her Without RentCase Title: Suryakant Kisan Pawar vs Deputy Collector, Mumbai and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 9The Bombay High Court directed a son who "deprived his mother from leading a normal life" to vacate the house "expeditiously", noting that...
Case Title: Suryakant Kisan Pawar vs Deputy Collector, Mumbai and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
The Bombay High Court directed a son who "deprived his mother from leading a normal life" to vacate the house "expeditiously", noting that the mother had suffered immensely since over five years.
Justice Girish Kulkarni observed that it was "astonishing" how the 48-year-old son had invented a novel way of entering the septuagenarian mother's house. He signed a rent agreement with her, with no intention of honouring the agreement as he didn't pay a single rupee to her until she did not approach the authorities against him.
Case : Renuka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Sixteen years after the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty of half-sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit for kidnapping 13 children and murdering at least five of them, the Bombay High Court has commuted their sentence to life imprisonment, due to the 7 years, 10 months and 15 days delay in deciding their mercy petitions.
"Despite this legal position only due to the casual approach of the officers of the respondent state (Maharashtra) the mercy petitions were not decided…Though the procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency the state machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage. That it took seven years only for the movement of files of such a grave issue is unacceptable when electronic communications were available to be used."
Case Details: Mulchand Dhanji Shah & Anr. V. Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmad & Ors., First Appeal No. 1005/2019 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The Bombay High Court ruled that lack of evidence supporting the income of the deceased does not justify ascertaining notional income at the minimum tier of wage in determining compensation.
It partly allowed an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in an appeal against the compensation awarded to kin of a deceased of a motor accident.
4. Transfer Of Tenancy Does Not Amount To Creation Of New Tenancy: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Alice Realities Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
A Bench of Justices G.S.Patel and Madhav J.Jamdar of the Bombay High Court observed that the transfer of tenancy would not amount to the creation of a "new" tenancy under the MHADA Act and Development Control Regulations, 1991.
The Court held that in cases of mere transfer of tenancy, which is not the same as creation of new tenancy, the prohibition in DCR 33 (7) and Appendix-III would not apply. It also holds that the only concern under the Rent Act and DC Regulations should be whether a new tenancy has been created and not whether the entities which have acquired tenancy are connected to one another.
Case Title: Smt. Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K. Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
Justice NJ Jamadar held that the deceased driver's heart attack could be termed an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Workman's Compensation Act.
"I am persuaded to hold that in the facts of the instant case, the death of the deceased can be said to have been accelerated on account of the stress and strain associated with the long distance driving for almost 18 days in trying circumstances. Any other view of the matter would defeat the beneficial object of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act,1923."
Case Title: Murli Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court ruled that no statutory authority, including the Income Tax authorities, can raise a fresh claim against a Corporate Debtor after the Resolution Plan was finalized and approved.
A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench of High Court observed that entertaining undecided claims after the Resolution Plan was submitted, would lead to uncertainty about the amount payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant who would've successfully taken over the business of the Corporate Debtor.
Case Title - Mosa Anand Rajulu vs. M/s. V. Ships Monaco and Another
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 15
An unregistered agreement between an employer and employee cannot be enforced to seek more compensation than what is already prescribed for cases of disability under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 (ECA), the Bombay High Court held.
"Section 29 thus reinforces the principle that compensation is required to be paid in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1923, save and except in a case where the agreement is registered under section 28," the court held.
8. Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To BJP MLA Nitesh Rane In Attempt To Murder Case
Case Title : Nitesh Rane & another vs State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High refused pre-arrest bail to BJP MLA Nitesh Rane, son of Union Minister Narayan Rane, in an attempt to murder case registered at Sindhudurg. The court noted that considerations for anticipatory bail include nature and gravity of the offence, role attributed to the Applicant and the facts of the case.