Nominal Index [Citation 436 – 450]

1. Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

2. Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

3. Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

4. Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

5. Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

6. Mayuri Krishna Jabare v. General Manager, BEST & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

7. Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

8. Bhanudas S/o Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

9. JIK Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Maruti Nashik Mene 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

11. Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

12. Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

13. Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

14. All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

15. Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

16. Euro Pratik Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

Reports/Judgments

1. Bombay HC Continues Interim Relief Granted To Mumbai's 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Establishment In Vijaywada 

Case Title: Asma Farid Noorani v. Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

The Bombay High Court refused to vacate the ex-parte interim relief granted to Haji Ali Juice Centre in Mumbai in a trade mark infringement suit against Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices, an establishment in Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh.

Justice Manish Pitale stated that the defendants didn't show that there was any falsehood and suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff in not disclosing a prior litigation with the defendants, as the plaintiff could not presume that there was any link between the Vijaywada establishment and the defendants.

2. ''Politically Motivated, Publicity Seeking Litigations': Bombay HC Dismisses Three PILs Against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut & NCP Functionary

Case Title: Hemant Baburao Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

The Bombay High Court dismissed three public interest litigations seeking an investigation against Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray and Sanjay Raut as well as Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) functionary after noting the pleas were ''politically motivated and publicity seeking litigations''.

A division bench of Justices S V Gangarpurwala and S G Dige dismissed three PILs stating, "We do not find any details in the allegations…no documents. We cannot direct a roving and fishing inquiry".

3. Bombay High Court Asks State's Revenue Dept To Consider Providing E-Stamp Facilities, Licence For New Vendors

Case Title: Swapnil Sadhu Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

The Bombay High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to Maharashtra Revenue Department to take an appropriate decision on a representation by a practicing advocate seeking allotment of new authorized stamp vendor licenses in Mumbai (especially in Fort area) for the convenience of the public or starting e-stamp facilities like NCR Delhi and other States.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar did not further examine the matter stating that a policy decision has to be taken by the government. "Whether or not e-stamp facility is to be introduced and/or whether the number of stamp vendors is to be increased are within the exclusive domain of the executive", the court held. The court added that it could not be proper for the court to make any mandatory direction in this case since the petitioner has not specifically denied the State's reply to the PIL.

4. Bombay High Court Restrains Saregama From Infringing Shemaroo's Copyright In 'Disco Dancer' Movie, Allows London Show To Go On

Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Limited v. Saregama India Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Saregama India Limited from infringing Shemaroo Entertainment Limited's copyright in the Mithun Chakraborty starrer Disco Dancer.

Justice Manish Pitale observed that prima facie the intellectual property rights and other theatrical rights of the film were assigned to Shemaroo by producer B Subhash in 2011, prior to a 2019 agreement cited by Shemaroo.

"Prima facie, it appears that when defendant No.3 (B Subhash) had already assigned all rights, including intellectual property rights, theatrical rights and other such rights pertaining to the said film in favour of the plaintiff, any such subsequent agreements executed by defendant No.3, claiming to assign adaptation rights or the rights to stage musicals would pale into insignificance."

5. Bombay High Court Allows Parole Without Police Escort To Arun Gawli For Attending Son's Wedding

Case Title: Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently allowed parole without police escort to gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli for attending his son's marriage. The court also decreased the amount of cash security and surety imposed on him.

The division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that the authority has not given any reason for imposing the condition of police escort and large amount of cash security and surety while granting parole.

6. Absence of RT-PCR Report At Peak of Pandemic No Ground To Refuse COVID Death Compensation: Bombay HC Directs BEST To Pay 50L To Dead Conductor's Kin

Case Title: Mayuri Krishna Jabare v. General Manager, BEST & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

Observing that the mere absence of an "RT-PCR report or adequate medical documentation" couldn't be a ground to refuse relief to a frontline covid worker's kin, the Bombay High Court directed Rs. 50 lakh compensation and compassionate appointment to the kin of a deceased BEST Bus conductor who died at the peak of the first covid wave in August 2020.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar said it would be "inhuman" to decline relief to the conductor who gave 22 years of his life to best and died while "answering the call of duty."

7. M-seal vs R-seal: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Pidilite In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Riya Chemy from using the mark 'R-Seal' or any other mark similar to Pidilite Industries Limited 's 'M-Seal' mark, in a trademark and copyright infringement suit.

Justice R. I. Chagla held that prima facie, the defendant secured the registration of the mark 'R-Seal' fraudulently by concealing the existence of the plaintiff's prior registered marks from the Registrar of Trade Marks.

9. Civil Court Order To Prevail Over Findings Recorded By Authorities Under Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bhanudas S/o Ramchandra Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

The Bombay High Court held that the judgement of the Civil Court in a prior suit will prevail over an order passed under Section 18(2) of the Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 for the same cause of action.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside the order passed by the District Registrar (Money Lending) and appellate authority which had declared a transaction between the parties to be a mortgage despite the Civil Court's prior declaration that it was an absolute sale.

10. 'Frivolous Petition': Bombay HC Imposes ₹50K Cost On JIK Industries For Delaying Adjudication In Watchman's 15-Yr-Old Compensation Claim

Case Title: JIK Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Maruti Nashik Mene

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

The Bombay High Court imposed Rs 50,000 costs on home products-manufacturer JIK Industries for opposing the very adjudication of a watchman's compensation claim - 18 years after he was burnt in a factory fire.

Justice MS Karnik dismissed the employer's "frivolous petition" that challenged the Labour Court's decision to condone the watchman's delay of two years and restored his 2007 claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court termed the objection 'hyper technical' and stated that the employer should have contested the claim on merits instead of challenging every interlocutory order.

11. Fictitious Claims Of Freedom Fighter's Pension Should Be Dealt With Sternly: Bombay HC While Dismissing 80 Yrs Old Widow's Plea

Case Title: Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

The Bombay High Court observing that fictitious freedom fighter claims must be dealt with sternly while dismissing a writ petition filed by a woman against rejection of her deceased husband's claim despite the husband not having challenged the same during his lifetime.

The court noted that petitioner's husband had filed his own affidavits with his applications but did not support his application with the affidavit of freedom fighters who suffered incarceration for a period of two years.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pedneker of the Nagpur bench dismissed the plea stating that petitioner did not produce any material to show that her husband was a freedom fighter.

12. 'Temple From Which Ganja Was Recovered Was Not In His Exclusive Possession': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Priest In NDPS Case

Case Title: Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a priest who is accused of growing cannabis plants in the temple premises in Pune. Justice Sandeep Shinde while dealing with the bail application observed that prima facie, the temple was not in exclusive possession of the priest.

"Above all the charge-sheet, prima-facie, does not suggest that temple from which ganja was recovered, was in his exclusive possession of the applicant. To put it differently, temple premises being accessible to the public at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in exclusive possession and control of the applicant", the court said in its order.

13. 'Prima Facie Can't Say Anand Teltumbde Was Involved In Any Terrorist Activity Under UAPA': Bombay High Court In Bail Order

Case Title: Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

The Bombay High Court said prima facie "it cannot be concluded that Teltumbde has indulged in a terrorist act," while granting bail to Anand Teltumbde on merits, in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgaar Parishad Case.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav observed that sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), and 20 (Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were prima facie not made out.

The court noted that prima facie the five letters cited against Anand Teltumbde, allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson's laptop would fall under the "realm of presumption" which would need "further corroboration."

Court observed that NIA's case that the CPI(Maoist) using the Elgar Parishad to further a 'larger conspiracy,' the material on record was not adequate to charge him to the sections.

14. State Govt's Power To Refer To Labour Court, any Disputes Regarding Newspaper Employee's Dues Cannot Be Delegated: Bombay High Court

Case Title: All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

The Bombay High Court held that the state government cannot delegate its power to refer a question related to amount due to any newspaper employee to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act).

Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench in a writ petition filed by law journal All India Reporter struck down a notification of the state government delegating the power to make reference to the Labour Court to the Additional Commissioner of Labour.

15. Bombay High Court Stays Centre's Notification Limiting Jurisdiction Of Cases Above Rs 100 Crores To 3 DRTs

Case Title: Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court stayed a notification issued by the central government on October 04, 2022, revising jurisdiction of various Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and giving jurisdiction for adjudicating cases valued over Rs. 100 crores to three DRTs located at Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge And Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh issued notice to the central government and stayed the notification in a writ petition challenging its constitutionality.

"Prima facie, it appears from the record that, the Debts Recovery Tribunals established at various locations, would now be divested of their jurisdiction, on the ground of pecuniary limitation created by a Notification, without any amendment to the RDB Act. This appears to be unsustainable", the court stated.

16. Assessee Can't forgo the deemed excise credit: Bombay High Court Orders Tran 1 Or Tran 2 to be filed on GST portal

Case Title: Euro Pratik Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

The Bombay High Court held that it will be wholly unfair if the assessee ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit, particularly when under Section 29(3) his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that the application, subject to paying all necessary fees and filing requisite documents, shall be considered and registration shall be restored by not later than November 22, 2022. After the restoration of registration, the nodal officer shall forward the restoration order to GSTN. The GSTN shall, on receipt of the order, ensure that the portal is open in such a way that the petitioner will be able to apply for migration under TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 before November 30, 2022.

The court ordered that if online restoration is not possible, the order will be passed manually. The Nodal Officer shall forward all those documents to GSTN, and GSTN shall consider the order as if it were filed online or properly filed and give effect to that in its portal.

Other Developments

1. Ex-BMC Corporator Moves Bombay High Court Against Ordinance Reducing Number Of Wards

Case Title: Raju Pednekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A former Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) corporator has approached the Bombay High Court challenging an ordinance dated August 8, 2022 that reversed Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government's decision to increase the number of BMC wards and reduced the number of wards back from 236 to 227.

The petition prays for declaration under article 226 of the Constitution that the Maharashtra Ordinance no. VII of 2022 (impugned ordinance) is ultra-vires the Constitution of India and hence null and void.

The petitioner has also sought a stay on the ordinance during pendency of the case with clarification that the SEC is required to proceed and conduct elections to the BMC on the basis of delimitation carried out by it in accordance with the Supreme Court orders.

2. Multifarious Proceedings Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay HC To Lt Col Prasad Purohit In Malegaon Blast Case

Case Title: Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court on Monday asked Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, accused in the Malegaon Blasts case, to decide whether he wants to pursue the pending appeal against rejection of his discharge application or the writ petition against special court's order taking cognizance of ATS chargesheet filed against him in 2009.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind Jadhav said that multifarious proceedings for the same cause of action cannot be permitted. The petitioner has three different pending cases in the High Court against the aforementioned special court's order

3. Bombay High Court Asks PIL Petitioner To Show How ₹200 VIP Entry Fees At Nashik's Trimbakeshwar Temple Is Unlawful (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Lalita Sandeep Shinde v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.

In a PIL against VIP entry fees of Rs. 200 charged by the Trimbakeshwar Temple Trust for special privileges of darshan, the Bombay High Court on Monday asked the petitioner to point out the provisions of law under which the VIP entry fees is illegal.

The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. G. Dige posted the matter for November 30, 2022 stating, "if a person asks for some preference, then extra can be charged. The arrangement is made for those persons……You show a provision which says it is not allowed."

4. Bombay HC Seeks State's Response On PIL Seeking Mandatory Charging Infrastructure For Electric Vehicles in Housing Societies

Case Title: Amit Dholakia & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court issued notice in a PIL seeking directions to the State and Registrar of Cooperative Societies for issuance of guidelines for installation of electric vehicle charging stations within cooperative housing societies.

A division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice S. G. Dige posted the matter for further hearing on January 06, 2023.

According to the petition, despite state government's Maharashtra Electric Vehicle Policy, 2001 (MEV Policy) promoting the adoption and manufacture of electric vehicles in Maharashtra, the Development Control And Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 do not contain any provision for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the petition submits.

"There is a regulatory and legislative vacuum governing the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in existing co-operative housing societies," the petition contends.

The petition prays that the court frame appropriate guidelines for the provision of charging infrastructure in cooperative housing societies till the State government or the registrar under section 14 or section 79A of the MCS Act respectively take appropriate action to fill this vacuum. The petition has also sought directions to the state government to implement the MEV Policy and make appropriate amendments to the DCPR, 2034.