Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 3 to July 9 2022

Siddharth Pithani vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

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

TATA Motors Ltd. & Anr. V The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

Anganwadi Karmachari Sanghatana and ors vs. Union of India and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

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

D.P. Construction vs Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 246

REPORTS

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

Case Title - Siddharth Pithani vs UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

Observing that prima facie Sushant Singh Rajput's own money was used for purchasing contraband, the Bombay High Court held that his roommate doesn't seem to have financed any of Rajput's transactions.

"By recording that the applicant is prima facie not guilty of the charge u/s.27-A, and as far as the other offences with which he is charged, involving small quantity, the punishment imposed upon him at the most, may extend upto one year, he deserve his liberty….The Kotak account of Sushant Singh refer to certain withdrawals on account of 'pooja samagri' but that was Sushant's own money and the contraband was arranged for him by the said money," the bench said while granting bail to SSR's roommate - Siddharth Pithani.

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

Case Title: Priya Malay Sheth versus 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.

3. 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 (BEST)

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

The Bombay High Court 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.

4. Don't Stop Food Supply To Anganwadi Centres For Not Linking Aadhaar Till App Is Updated With Regional Languages : Bombay High Court Directs Centre

Case Title: Anganwadi Karmachari Sanghatana and ors vs. Union of India and ors.

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

The Bombay High Court directed the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to rectify the mobile application for anganwadi workers and ensure its availability in regional languages, as well, within three months.

In the meantime, the Centre must refrain from withholding allotment of food grains to anganwadi centres within Maharashtra for failure to feed the beneficiary's Aadhaar data in English on the Poshan Tracker Application, the HC ordered.

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

Case Title: Monika Narendra Sharma Vs. 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.

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

Case Title: D.P. Construction vs Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd.

Citation - - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 246

The Bombay High Court has 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.