Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 258-527]

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.

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

Case Title: Santacruz Gymkhana v. 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.

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

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited v. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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 3rd Feb 2015 as in terms of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, the amendment came in to force on 23rd October 2015.

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."

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.

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".

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.

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.

'Deceptively Similar Design': Bombay High Court Halts Sale of Polycab Wizzy After Atomberg Alleges Infringement

Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Polycab India Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

The Bombay High Court restrained a leading electrical appliance manufacturer Polycab India Ltd. from marketing its fan in an ex parte order stating that prima facie it has identical design as that of 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'.

Justice R. I. Chagla granted temporary injunction in favour of the Mumbai based fan manufacturer Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in a commercial IPR suit stating that Polycab has reproduced the overall design, shape, configuration, and get-up of Atomberg's Renesa Ceiling Fan.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

[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".

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."

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."

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.

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,".

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.

[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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

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 11th September but for subsequent examinations.

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."

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

'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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Kaalkaa Real Estates Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Class I & II Officers May Be Exempted From Recovery of Excess Payment In Exceptional Cases, Conditions In Rafiq Masih Case Not Exhaustive: Bombay HC

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.

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.

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.

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."

'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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

'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."

'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.

Reassessment Notice Issued Against A Dead Person Would Be Invalid: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shailesh Shah, Legal Heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Harilal Shah v. The Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 368

The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice against a dead person would be invalid unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that where the legal representatives do not waive their right to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against the dead person is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Income Tax Act.

'Lab Lacked Accreditation To Analyse Whiskey Samples': Bombay High Court Quashes FSSA Proceedings Against Alcohol Manufacturer

Case Title: M/s. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Food and Drugs Administration against the alcohol manufacturer Pernod Ricard in 2021 for alleged violation of the regulation on declared level of ethyl alcohol content in the whisky.

The court observed that the lab that analysed the sample was not accredited for testing whisky. The court stated that the tests must be carried within the valid scope of recognition of the Food and Drugs Administration Laboratory that had tested the samples.

Custodial Interrogation Is Not Imperative Merely Because Offence Is Murder: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused

Case Title: Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

The custodial interrogation of an accused is not mandatory merely because he's been booked in a murder case, the Bombay High Court held while granting anticipatory bail to a man booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the man's legitimate apprehension of arrested was enough to seek pre-arrest bail adding the offence allegedly occurred three years ago wherein he allegedly had a limited role.

Employer Cannot Deny Back Wages Citing 'No Work No Pay' After Refusing Reinstatement Due To Pendency Of Appeal Against Acquittal: Bombay HC

Case Title: Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently held that an employer cannot deny wages citing pendency of a criminal appeal against an employee's acquittal on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil And Sandeep V. Marne granted back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner in a writ petition challenging Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited's decision to not pay back wages despite him being acquitted by the trial court.

"In our opinion, mere pendency of the appeal against acquittal would not entitle the respondents to continue the penalty of removal from service," the court said.

Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit

Case title: Oasis Realty v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor court noted that any payment towards output tax, whether self-assessed in the return or payable as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the MGST Act, can be made by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Hence, a party can pay 10% of the disputed tax either using the amount available in the electronic cash ledger or the amount available in the electronic credit ledger.

Anil Deshmukh May Not Get Convicted, Sachin Waze's Statements Contradictory: Bombay High Court In Bail Order

Case title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate stating that Deshmukh, in all probability, "may not be ultimately convicted".

The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar refused to rely solely on Sachin Waze's statements considering his contradictory stand before the Justice Chandiwal Commission wherein he denied all the allegations against Deshmukh. The court also cited Waze's chequered past to prima facie discredit him as a witness.

Well Qualified Wife Expressing Desire To Pursue Job Not Cruelty; Reproductive Choice Insegregable To Woman's Personal Liberty: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pundlik Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

The Bombay High Court held that a wife expressing a desire to work does not amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further said that the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an insegregable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke upheld family court's refusal to grant divorce to the husband on the ground that cruelty is not proven.

The court said that cruelty has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of the family life. The husband's allegation that the wife was harassing him by expressing that she wants to do the job is vague. Expressing desire by wife who is well qualified that she wants to do the job does not amount to cruelty. The husband has to make out a specific case that the conduct of wife was such a nature that it was difficult for him to lead the life along with her, the court said.

The husband had also accused his wife of terminating her second pregnancy without his consent and thereby subjecting him to cruelty. The bench said that even if the husband's allegations were taken at face value, the wife cannot be accused of cruelty for making a reproductive choice.

No Offence U/S 376 IPC- Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Binoy Kodiyeri Following Settlement of Rs. 80 Lakhs

Case Title: Binoy Kodiyeri v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR by consent against Binoy Kodiyeri, son of CPI(M) former secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan in a rape case after it was informed that the parties had arrived at a settlement of Rs. 80 lakhs for the woman and the couple's child.

In the consent terms before the bench of Justices R P Mohite-Dere and S M Modak, the woman withdrew all her statements which carry allegation that Kodyeri is her husband. She also said that their relationship was consensual.

Minimum 30 Days' Time To Be Granted To File Reply To GST SCN: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sheetal Dilip Jain v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

The Bombay High Court held that Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act) permits a person chargeable with tax for a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment of such tax along with interest payable. If he does not wish to make payment, then within the 30-day period he could file a reply to the show-cause notice.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that to file a reply to the show-cause notice, the statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer.

Consider Handing Over All Roads Within Greater Mumbai To BMC: Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: Ruju Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to consider Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner Iqbal Chahal's suggestion of handing over all the roads in Greater Mumbai to the civic body for their better upkeep and maintenance.

In a contempt matter related to the bad condition of roads, the court found Chahal's proposal "appealing" while considering it from the aspect of coordination, monitoring, upkeep and maintenance of the roads.

The division bench of the Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik also said it expects the civic body to complete concretization work on all its roads within 30 months.

Objectionable Pictures Annexed With Petitions Invade Parties' Privacy: Bombay HC Advises Advocates To Exercise Caution

Case Title: Jyotsna D'souza v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

The Bombay High Court warned all advocates against annexing objectionable pictures to petitions filed in the High Court, citing the invasion of privacy.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Justice SM Modak imposed cost of Rs. 25, 000 on the petitioner's advocate who had annexed pictures to the petition.

"We expect, all lawyers/Advocates to exercise some discretion and proportion whilst annexing the photographs which are highly objectionable. Annexing such photographs certainly invades upon the privacy of the parties," the bench observed.

Adani's IBC Acquisition: Bombay HC Directs MSEDCL To Provide New Electricity Connection Without Clearance of National Rayon Co.'s Past Dues Worth 28Cr

Case Title: NRC Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

The Bombay High Court directed the State Electricity Department to provide a new electricity connection to National Rayon Corporation (NRC) without seeking clearance of NRC's "Rs. 28 crore pending dues."

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse prima facie agreed with NRC's argument that MSEDCL's didn't file a claim before the Resolution Professional in time, therefore, its claim for past dues stands extinguished. Under the IBC, the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan on July 3, 2019, however MSEDCL put in its claim first in October 2019.

The bench rejected MSEDCL's argument that it was the Resolution Professional's responsibility to include its claims while preparing the resolution plan citing pending litigation between NRC and MSEDCL.

S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC Bats For Making Offence Compoundable In Maharashtra, Says Minimum 10 Quashing Petitions Are Filed Everyday

Case Title: Sandip Sarjerao Sule and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

The Bombay High Court urged the Union of India to consider Maharashtra's bill to make domestic violence cases (498A IPC) compoundable with the permission of the concerned court citing hardships caused to innumerable couples who are constrained to approach the High Court for quashing.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and SM Modak asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to take up the issue with the concerned Ministry at the earliest.

[Maharashtra Protection Of Depositors Act] Seriousness Of Accusation No Reason To Deny Bail To Undertrial If Half Sentence Served: High Court

Case title: Sagar Vilas Tote v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of crores of rupees under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, observing that gravity of his offence cannot be a reason to deny him benefit of section 436-A of the CrPC.

Relying on SC's judgement in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Justice Bharati Dangre observed, "I do not think that the seriousness of the accusation would deny him the benefit flowing from the said section, when his case squarely falls within sub-section (1) of Section 436A, on having undergone more than half of the period of maximum imprisonment."

Bombay High Court Slams BMC For Insensitivity, Directs Developer To Vacate Land Reserved For Nair Hospital Extension

Case title: Imran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

The Bombay High Court recently directed Rubberwala Developers Private Limited to vacate the land reserved by the BMC for extension of Nair Hospital in Byculla, Mumbai.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed that there has been gross abuse of powers at the cost of overwhelming public interest in a PIL petition seeking that the land reserved for extension of the hospital be handed over to the hospital.

BMC should have evicted the developer on noticing that it had obtained the rights in the premises without written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, the court stated.

BMC's Refusal To Exercise Discretion Without Justifiable Reason, Situation Was Avoidable: Bombay High Court On Rutuja Latke Resignation

Case Title: Rutuja Ramesh Latke v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

"Discretion is not to be used at the sweet will of the authority and in a whimsical manner. If, in the given facts and circumstances, the Court finds that there is a failure of justice, the writ court has the power to issue necessary directions," the Bombay High Court observed while granting relief to Rutuja Latke, a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation employee and prospective candidate for the legislative assembly by-polls.

The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh said that while the Municipal Commissioner has the discretion to waive the notice period, the only factor that could be considered in the exercise of this discretion are the exigencies of administration. If the circumstances for the exercise of discretion exist and discretion is still withheld for no reasons, such refusal would be arbitrary and ultra vires.

UAPA Trial Without Valid Sanction Is Void; Procedural Safeguards Can't Be Sacrificed: Bombay High Court While Discharging GN Sai Baba

Case Title: G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) discharged former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others in alleged Maoist links case. The Court has allowed their appeals against conviction and life sentence imposed under the anti-terror law UAPA.

The Court held that the trial was null and void as valid sanction as required under Section 45 of the UAPA was not obtained. The Court observed that procedural safeguards cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a "perceived peril to national security".

Merely Because S.482 CrPC Does Not Prescribe Limitation Period Does Not Mean Parties Can Approach Court With Inordinate Delay: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sushilabai w/o Vaijinath Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

The Bombay High Court held that a party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC at his whim and caprice merely because the provision does not stipulate any period of limitation,

Division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh S. Patil sitting at Aurangabad observed that within what time a petitioner should approach the Court under Section 482 CrPC depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, such time must be reasonable, not vitiated by inordinate delay and latches.

Appellate Court May Remand A Case Back Only Where Trial Court Skips Finding On Certain Issue Or Decides Suit Only On Preliminary Issue: Bombay HC

Case Title: Pandurang Sitaram Choudhari (Borse) & Ors. v. Sunil Pralhad Choudhari & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

The Bombay High Court held that an order of remanding case back can be passed by the Appellate Court only if the trial Court skips finding on certain issue or decides the suit only on preliminary issue by leaving open the vital issue in respect of the real controversy between the parties.

Bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More sitting at Aurangabad added that no remand can be made if the trial Court has decided the suit by considering the entire evidence on record and when the appellate Court, in view of the said material, is able to reassess the evidence to ascertain whether the findings given by the trial Court are sustainable or not.

Only Students Residing In District Where Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Is Situated Are Eligible For Admissions: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ku. Shubham Vijay Patil and Ors. v. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

The Bombay High Court held that the students seeking admission to a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) must be resident of the same district in which the JNV is located. The student must have completed 5th standard from the same district as well.

"Candidate seeking admission to the JNV must satisfy the twin test (i) he must be studying in class V in Government / Government aided or other recommended schools or B Certificate Competency Course of NIOS in the same District where the JNV is situated and (ii) he must be resident of the same district where the JNV is situated and is seeking admission", a division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha held.

Bombay HC Says Father Wanted To Teach Daughter's Young Lover A Lesson, No Intention To Kill, Sets Aside Life Sentence

Case Title: Sachin Laxman Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

The Bombay High Court set aside the life sentence awarded to a carpenter and his son in an honour killing case and instead held them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It observed that the duo just wanted to "teach the victim a lesson" for continuing the relationship with the girl.

The bench held the duo's actions of first accosting, assaulting, then overpowering and striking the woman's 20-year-old suitor with a hammer, and finally fleeing the scene when people gathered, in the accused's favour. The victim belonged to a different caste.

Married Daughter Of Deceased Also Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sm. Mina v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

The Bombay High Court held that a married daughter of a victim of a railway accident would also be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act even though she may not be dependent on him, the Nagpur bench of.

"If Section 123(b)(i) of the Railway Act is perused, it is the definition of dependant wherein daughter is included. There is no qualification either married or unmarried daughter. As such claimant is entitled for compensation," said Justice M.S. Jawalkar.

Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

The Bombay High Court held that a passenger who is forced to cross the railway tracks due to absence of a foot over bridge and gets hit by a train cannot be called negligent and his dependents would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench referred to the definition of 'passenger' under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and observed that the definition does not suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger after alighting from the train and meeting with an accident. The court noted that the Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept.

Hazardous To Force Parties To Litigate Despite Compromise In Domestic Violence Cases U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Yash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 391

The Bombay High Court observed that it would be "hazardous" to force a couple to litigate when they want to live happily while underscoring the importance of quashing domestic violence cases once parties arrive at a settlement, even though they are categorized as non-compoundable offence.

A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh Patil noted that refusing to quash disputes despite amicable settlements, would be a "dis-service to the society for the protection of which the courts exits."

Order I Rule 10 CPC | Theory Of Dominus Litis Can't Be Overstretched To Exclude Necessary Parties From Suit: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)

Case title: Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392

The Bombay High Court held that the trial court has "full power" under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to add a party as defendant if necessary to decide a suit, even if the plaintiff does not choose to implead said party.

The court said that there is no doubt that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and it is his choice to seek an injunction only against the person see chooses.

However, the powers of the trial court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code are very wide and extensive. The court can implead any party at any stage even without an application if it thinks that their presence is necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the suit.

Marry Girlfriend You Abandoned Within A Year: Bombay High Court's Bail Condition For Rape Accused

Case title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 393

The Bombay High court granted bail to a man accused of raping a woman and abandoning her, on the condition that he would marry her within a year.

Justice Bharti Dangre observed that the prosecutrix and accused were in a consensual relationship, and the man refused to marry her when she was six months pregnant. The accused submitted before the court that he and his family members were ready to solemnize the marriage and accept the paternity of the child. However, the court was told, the prosecutrix is now untraceable as she was charged with abandoning the child.

"In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail subject to compliance that if the victim girl is traced within a short while and say in a period of one year, he shall solemnize marriage with her, but he shall not be bound by the statement beyond one year," Justice Dangre held.

Kabir Kala Manch Incited Hatred By Ridiculing Phrases Acche Din, Demonetization In Plays At Elgar Parishad: Bombay HC In Jyoti Jagtap Bail Order

Case Title: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 394

The Bombay High Court while refusing bail to accused Jyoti Jagtap under UAPA, held that text ridiculing phrases like 'Ram Mandir' and 'Acche Din' aimed at the democratically elected government in Kabir Kala Manch's plays at the Elgar Parishad event in 2017 incited hatred & passion and indicate a larger conspiracy.

The bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav also took exception to the mention of 'gomutra,' 'calling the PM an 'infant,' 'sanatan dharma,' 'atrocities of peshwas towards dalits' and 'atrocities of dalits in today's India' etc.

The court held NIA's contention regarding Jagtap having conspired, attempted, advocated and abated the commission of a terrorist act as prima facie true and said that her role will have to be seen as a part of conspiracy. Her name on the Elgar Parishad event invite, witness statements highlighted her active role in organising the event as also her association with active members of the banned CPI (Maoist).

Principle Of Res Judicata Applies To Children Claiming Property Through Parent Earlier Involved In Property Suit: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chandrakant Narayan Salvi v. Chandrakant Krushna Kumbhar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 395

The Bombay High Court upheld trial court's decision to dismiss a partition suit citing the principle of res judicata. The plaintiff had claimed the properties through his mother; however, the issue had been decided in an earlier suit for same properties filed by his mother.

Justice S. M. Modak dismissed the second appeal stating that there was no need to interfere in the judgments of the lower courts as there was no perversity in those findings and no substantial question of law is made out in the appeal.

IIT Admissions: Bombay HC Asks Institutes To Consider Allotting Vacant Seats To Aspirants Who Cleared 1st Counselling Round But Couldn't Deposit Fees

Case Title: Bharat Bhusan v. The Chairman, Joint Seat Allocation Authority and Ors. with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 396

In a plea by two candidates who were allotted seats in IITs in the first round of counselling but didn't pay fees due to technical glitch, the Bombay High Court asked the IITs to consider giving admission to the petitioners if seats are vacant in the 6th round.

The bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha considered that the petitioners are bright students who were allotted seats in the first rounds only due to their merits and stated –

"…if during the 6th round after all students have taken admission, if there are some seats vacant, the respondent No.2 may consider the petitioners for admission without impinging upon the rights of any other students."

Early Rehabilitation Primary Focus Under Slums Act, Unconscionable Delay In Redevelopment Ground To Remove Developer: Bombay HC

Case Title: Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 397

The Bombay High Court held that a slum dweller's right to shelter under Article 21 cannot be nullified by unconscionable delays caused by a developer and is a ground for its removal under section 13(2) of the Slums Act.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Yash Developers challenging its removal by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in a project wherein transit rents were not paid to at least 199 slum dwellers and development hadn't commenced for over 18 years. The CEO of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) had refused to remove the developer despite innumerable complaints after which the slum dwellers society's grievances were redressed by AGRC.

A single judge bench of Justice GS Kulkarni ruled that the CEO – SRA or AGRC are duty bound to hold the interest and early rehabilitation of slum dwellers as paramount while considering an application to remove the developer u/s 13 of the Act.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea By Uddhav Faction Against 'Diwali Pahat' To Be Conducted By Shinde Faction

Case Title: Mandar Pramod Vichare v. Thane Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 398

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a member of Uddhav Thackeray led faction challenging Thane Municipal Corporation's (TMC) permission to two members of CM Eknath Shinde faction to conduct Diwali Pahat, an annual musical event on the first day of Diwali.

The division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the petitioners did not have necessary permissions, so the question of favouritism by TMC towards Eknath Shinde faction does not arise.

The court observed after going through the documents submitted by the parties and the arguments made that the petitioner did not fulfil the procedural requirements for obtaining the permission. Hence, the court said that that the TMC did not act in a mala fide manner while denying the permission to Uddhav Thackeray faction.

Police Should Recognize & Assist NGOs When Possible Instead Of Suspecting Them: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dashrath Arjun Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 399

The Bombay High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of fraudulently inducing people to donate to his NGO 'The Little Shine Foundation', observed that the police must uphold services of NGOs and assist them if possible.

Justice Bharti Dangre in her order observed, "it is also necessary for the Police Department, which is an important organ of the State Government, to recognize and uphold the services carried out by such NGOs and, if possible, to assist them in taking their ventures further, as there are several areas where the State machinery is unable to reach".

The court said that instead of "moving the needle of suspicion" to NGOs widely engaged in social service and helping weaker sections of the society, focus should be on the good deeds done by such NGOs.

Financial Benefits To Assessee Can't Be A Ground To Levy Interest Without A Statutory Provision: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 400

The Bombay High Court ruled that penalty or interest on additional customs duty (CVD) and special additional duty of customs (SAD), or surcharge, which is not connected to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed in the absence of an explicit substantive provision.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor observed that there was no substantive provision which obligated the assessee to pay interest or penalty on CVD or SAD, leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or on the surcharge leviable under the Finance Act, 2000.

The Court held that when penalty is imposed by way of additional tax, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition of the same. The bench added that the Settlement Commission cannot pass an order beyond the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the fact that the assessee derived financial benefits cannot be a ground to order payment of interest in the absence of any statutory provision.

IO Duty Bound To Subject Accused To Mental Examination Immediately After Arrest In Appropriate Cases: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

The Bombay High Court recently observed that that the investigating officer has a duty to have the accused examined for mental issues immediately after apprehension, if he comes to know that there is some doubt about the soundness of mind of the accused.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind N. Jadhav acquitted the appellant in a criminal appeal against his murder conviction observing that there was a reasonable doubt to the sanity of the appellant and the prosecution had failed to discharge the same. The court stated in its order, "once PW-7 – IO became aware of the fact after apprehending the Appellant that he was mentally retarded, it was his lawful duty to subject the Appellant to medical examination and place the evidence of such medical examination before the learned Trial Court".

Bombay High Court Dismisses Developers' Pleas Against Levy Of ₹800 Crores Aggregate Development Charges

Case Title: Shivaji Nagar Rahivashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

The Bombay High Court has held that developers undertaking redevelopment on state owned land wouldn't be exempt from paying Development Charges under Sections 124A & F of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

Development charges are imposed to provide public amenities and for the improvement of the area. Only planning authorities undertaking such development would be exempt from such charges under the provision, the court held.

The order passed by Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata stated –

"In our view, Section 124F has to be read ejusdem generis with remaining part of Section 124F, vesting, control, possession as well as, in view of the fact that the exemption is only granted for the development undertaken by the Central or the State Government or Local Authorities and not by private parties. "

Govt Servant Turning Hostile In Criminal Trial Does Not Amount To Misconduct, May Be Unethical: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held that a government servant turning hostile in a criminal trial may be unethical, but it does not amount to misconduct capable of being punished.

"Not standing by the statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. during his testimony during trial could possibly be construed as an unethical act not expected of an ideal government servant .... The same, however, would not amount to misconduct capable of being subjected to punishment for ensuring discipline amongst the organization," said the court.

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Sandeep V. Marne further observed that the disciplinary authority is not an expert to gauge the factors leading to hostility of the witness and perjury can only be established by the Sessions Court and not in a disciplinary inquiry.

The court clarified that appointing authority can proceed against the employee departmentally for turning hostile in a criminal trial based on conviction under Section 191 IPC, without conducting any departmental inquiry.

Subleasing Of Containers; Deemed Sale, Service Tax Not Applicable; Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nayana Premji Savala v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

The Bombay High Court has ruled that service tax would be applicable on transfer of goods only in cases where there is no "transfer of right to use" the said goods.

The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and A. S. Doctor ruled that in view of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, transfer of right to use goods is a deemed sale, which is subject to Sales Tax/VAT. The Court added that Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution does not distinguish between an owner or a lessor of the goods. Thus, the bench ruled that lease of goods for valuable consideration on a "transfer of right to use" basis is a deemed sale, even if the transferor is not the owner of the said goods.

Appeals Against Ex-Parte Orders Should Not Be Encouraged, Defendant Can Always Approach Single Judge: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

The Bombay High Court in an order on a commercial appeal deprecated the practice of filing appeal against ex parte orders and stated that there are inbuilt safeguards in such orders which facilitate the defendants to approach the Single Judge, who passed the order, to vacate, modify or limit the same.

The division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse said that the appeal court cannot reverse findings of the single Judge based on material that was never placed before the single Judge barring the most exceptional circumstances.

The court also opined that a substantive application by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC is not mandatory to have a without notice order set aside.

Theft can be considered a 'violent attack' under section 123 of the Railways Act if passenger got injured while attempting to catch phone snatcher: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Narendra S/o Chuhadram Sharma v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

The Bombay High Court held that theft can be considered a 'violent attack' under Section 123(c)(1)(ii) of the Railways Act, even if it's not specifically mentioned under the 'untoward incident' definition, in a situation where the passenger falls down and gets injured while running after a thief in a train.

The court said that any ordinary normal person's reaction would be to run towards the thief and try to recover the mobile if someone suddenly snatches the mobile in a train. If he gets injured while doing so it cannot be considered self-inflicted injury as there is no intention to harm oneself.

Obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation' in accident cases even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

The Bombay High Court held that nit-picking and awarding meagre amounts of compensation to accident victims, unmindful of their deep mental and emotional scars, is an affront of the injured victim while awarding compensation of more than Rs 1 crore to a claimant, who sustained multiple injuries in a road accident in 2004.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated that there is no embargo in awarding compensation more than that claimed by the Claimant. It is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation', even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. Court observed that paraplegia not only impairs the physical, mental, social and financial wellbeing of a married victim but also impacts the lives of his spouse who inevitably becomes main caregiver, children and infirm parents.

Letter To Competent Authority Under Maha Industrial Development Act Sufficient to Refer Compensation Enhancement Claim For Land Acquisition: Bombay High Court

Case title – Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

The Bombay High Court held that written applications for enhancement of compensation for land acquisition are sufficient to prove that appellants were seeking enhancement.

Justice S. G. Dige of the Aurangabad bench further observed that Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) requires written application for reference to court for enhancement of compensation, but it does not prescribe a form of petition.

Labelling Husband As 'Alcoholic', 'Womaniser' Without Substance Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court

Case title – Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar,

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

The Bombay High Court held that a wife making unsubstantiated allegations against her husband in a court labelling him as an 'alcoholic' and a 'womanizer' amounts to cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/wife challenging family court's decision to grant divorce decree to her husband observing that no evidence was produced by the wife to prove her allegations.

Execution Of Agreement, In Bid Document As Condition Precedent; Failure To Execute, Not A Concluded Contract: Bombay High Court

Case title: Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

The Bombay High Court ruled that where reference to a future contract is made in the tender documents and in the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to a successful bidder, in such terms which shows that the parties do not intend to be bound until the said contract is signed between them, there is no concluded contract between them which can be specifically enforced.

The Division Bench of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata added that the terms and conditions of the contract, which were not agreed by and between the parties, cannot be drafted by the Court or the arbitrator for incorporating them in the agreement. The Court ruled that it cannot re-write a contract or suggest any conditions of a contract to be incorporated, by passing an order against the parties.

Deadly Assault On Sleeping Man After A Fight Not Culpable Homicide But Murder: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

The Bombay High Court held that killing a person in his sleep hours after a fight would be a case of murder punishable under section 302 of the IPC, and not culpable homicide, and refused to set aside the murder conviction of a truck cleaner.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh upheld the life sentence awarded to Mittu Pareda by a Sessions court in 2013. Pareda killed his acquaintance with a log of wood in his sleep, hours after the deceased fought with him and accused him of stealing his phone.

Consultation With Federal Society Prerequisite For Removal Of Committee Member Under Section 78 Of Cooperative Societies Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kusum Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State Minister for Co-operation, Department of Co-operation and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

The Bombay High Court held that consultation with the federal society to which a co-operative society is officiated is mandatory before the registrar can remove any committee or the member of the society if the acts of the committee or its members are against the interest of the co-operative society.

Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that while the federal society's opinion is not binding, it still must be sought by the Deputy Registrar under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Clerk Fighting Employment Dispute For Over 8 Years Dies, Bombay High Court Directs All Pensionary Benefits

Case Title: Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

The Bombay High Court directed Hingoli Zilla Parishad to grant all pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased clerk even though the case challenging his dismissal was pending in the Labour Court.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad Bench also granted continuity in service to the petitioner during the period between his dismissal and reinstatement to service.

The clerk was dismissed from service over 10 years ago and was fighting the dispute for over 8 years. He died while his writ petition was pending in the High Court.

Chhath Pooja 2022: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Order Revoking Permission To Group Backed By NCP Leader

Case Title: Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

The Bombay High Court quashed BMC's decision to revoke the permission granted to a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) backed organisation to hold Chhath Pooja in Ghatkopar, Mumbai on October 30-31st. The court also reversed the BMC's decision granting permission to another charitable organisation Atal Samajik Sanskruti Seva Pratisthan, backed by BJP.

A division bench of Justices N. J. Jamadar and Gauri Godse said that the permission granted by BMC to Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal, an organisation led by NCP Corporator Rakhee Jadhav, was prior in time. Hence, the subsequent permission granted to Atal could not sustain.

Married Woman Being Asked To Do Household Work Does Not Mean She Is Treated Like Maid Servant: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

The Bombay High Court held that a married woman being asked to do household work does not mean that she is being treated like a maid servant. The court also observed that without description of alleged acts of the husband and in-laws, it cannot be determined whether they committed cruelty towards the wife.

"Mere use of the word harassment "mentally and physically" are not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC", a division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rajesh S. Patil of the Aurangabad bench observed while dealing with an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR filed by a woman against her husband and his family members.

Juvenile Being Tried As Adult No Bar To Grant Of Bail U/S 12 JJ Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a juvenile in conflict with law despite being tried as an adult would be entitled to special parameters for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Merely because, he is directed to be tried as an adult, he cannot be denied the benefit of Section 12, Justice Bharati Dangre said in her order granting bail to a 17-year-old murder accused.

Bombay HC Upholds Order Striking Off Father's Defence For Depriving Mother Of Visitation Rights

Case Title: Shardul Shamprasad Dev v. Manjiri Shardul Dev

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

Bombay High Court upheld a district court's order striking off his defence in a matrimonial dispute. The father was violating the visitation order stating that the child did not want to meet his mother. He filed a writ petition challenging the order striking off his defence before the High Court.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that even after the order striking off the defence of the petitioner, he defaulted on granting visitation rights to the mother. The court said that while the order to strike off defence is a drastic measure to be avoided by the courts, in the present case the district court has recorded that petitioner has wilfully disobeyed district court's order.

Bombay High Court Directs Son, Daughter-In-Law To Vacate Their 88-Yr-Old Mother's Flat, Pay Monthly Maintenance

Case Title: Hemant Gamanlal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

The Bombay High Court upheld an order of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal (tribunal) directing a man to pay monthly maintenance as well as handover a flat to his 88-year-old mother.

The court, in a writ petition challenging the tribunal's order, held that the petitioners had no legal right to the flat and they cannot evict the mother to take exclusive advantage of the same.

The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha however, reduced the maintenance amount as it was not in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (Act).

Bombay High Court Grants Caste Certificate Using Native Place's Name & Language

Case Title: Surendra Murlidhar Kopulwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

The Bombay High Court recently granted a Scheduled Tribe certificate to an Amravati resident based on pre-constitutional entries mentioning his native place's name instead of the name of his caste at various places.

A bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare set aside the caste scrutiny committee's order that had cited confusion in the petitioner's documents while invalidating his caste certificate. While the petitioner claimed to be from the 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe, his ancestors' documents stated their caste as being 'Telangi,' 'Telgu' and 'Telgu Manwar.'

However, the Bombay High Court said there was no confusion as the Mennewar's were mainly found in Telangana and spoke Telugu.

Death Is The Greatest Equalizer, State Bound To Provide Reasonable Facilities For Burial & Cremation, There Must Be No Discrimination: Bombay HC

Case Title: Muzaffar Manzoor Kadri v. State Govt. of Goa and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

The Bombay High Court directed the Public Works Department, the Margao Municipal Council and Goa State Urban Development Agency (GSUDA) to construct a burial ground for the Muslim community in Sonsodo locality, within 6 months.

This order was passed in a PIL highlighting that the land was acquired for the purpose of constructing the kabristan 11 years ago but there has been no progress in the construction and development of the kabristan since then.

A division bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande of the Goa bench observed that the authorities have a duty to provide cemeteries, burial grounds, electrical crematorium etc. to the public.

Police Station Not a Prohibited Place Under Official Secrets Act: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Booked For Shooting Video Inside PS

Case Title: Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

The Bombay High Court recently said that the definition of 'prohibited place' in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is exhaustive but police station has not been included as one of the establishments or places under it.

Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki Menezes of the Nagpur bench made the observation while quashing an FIR in July this year against a man, who was booked under Section 3 of the Act for recording a video inside a police station in 2018.

Misled By Claimant's Counsel, Bombay High Court Apologises To MACT Assistant Registrar For Making Strong Remarks

Case Title: Girish Gopal Nair & Ors v. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

The Bombay High Court apologised for its strong remarks against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pune and said that the remarks will be expunged from the record after realising that it was misled by a claimant's advocate.

A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Gauri V Godse on September 22 and October 14, 2022, had pulled up the Registrar MACT for failure to remit Rs. 30 lakh compensation to the claimant-son for 2.5 years.

However, on October 19 the bench learned that an application for remittance was made only on October 10, 2022. It therefore commented on the "poor" conduct of the law firm, for the manner in which the case was handled.

Child Raised In Orphanage Cannot Be Declared As "Orphan" Under JJ Act If Biological Parents Are Alive: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

The Bombay High Court held that children though brought up in an orphanage cannot be declared as 'orphans' as defined under Section 2(42) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Act, 2015 if their biological parents are alive.

The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala & RN Laddha however asked the Committee under the JJ Act to decide if such children, the petitioners, can be declared as 'abandoned children' under section 2(1) of the Act.

Bombay High Court Asks Legal Services Authority To Review Pending Cases Where Lawyers Are Not Appointed Despite Prisoners' Requests

Case Title: Dineshkumar Govind Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

The Bombay High Court asked its Legal Services Authority to review pending cases where lawyers have not been appointed despite prisoners' requests so that appeals can be filed expeditiously.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was dealing with an interim application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against applicant's conviction. The Legal Services Authority had kept his request for appointment of advocate pending for more than two years.

Maharashtra Minor Mineral Rules | Prior Environmental Clearance Not Required For Quarry Permits For Temporary Extraction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

The Bombay High Court held that quarry permits for extraction and removal of minor minerals from a specified area for a temporary period do not require prior submission of environmental clearance certificate under Rule 59 of Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (2013 Rules).

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside directions by the State Government which required prior submission of environment clearance certificate for grant of quarry permits despite there being no such requirement in the 2013 Rules. The court stated that the 2013 rules will prevail over executive instructions of the government.

Arbitration, Invoked Without Authority, The Defect Can't Be Ratified With Fresh Board Resolution: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sushma Arya and Ors. v. Palmview Overseas Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

The Bombay High Court ruled that the issue whether the arbitration was invoked and the Statement of Claim was filed, by a person duly authorized by the claimant, goes to the root of the matter, with respect to which the arbitral tribunal may make a final arbitral award. Thus, the Court held that the order passed by the arbitral tribunal, granting a choice to the claimant to prove the board resolution passed by it, appointing its authorized representative, or to pass a fresh board resolution, is an interim award which is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice C.V. Bhadang held that once the arbitral tribunal had ruled that the specified person had no authority to invoke arbitration and depose on behalf of the claimant, in view of the fact that the alleged board resolution was not proved by it as valid, the tribunal could not have ruled that the said defect was rectifiable. The Court added that ratification can only be of an act which is otherwise valid.

Uttar Pradesh Migrant Not Entitled To Benefits Meant For OBC Candidates In Maharashtra: High Court

Case Title: Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a migrant from Uttar Pradesh is not entitled to any benefits meant for OBC candidates in Maharashtra, and upheld the invalidation of a Nationalist Congress Party candidate for BMC Naziya Ansari's caste certificate.

"She being a migrant after the deemed date was not entitled to contest elections in Maharashtra," the bench said. The court also found that Ansari had produced "fabricated documents" and was guilty of defrauding the court, and therefore imposed cost of Rs. 50,000.

Biker Not Liable For Contributory Negligence If Parking Lights Of Stationary Vehicle Against Which He Dashed At Night Were Off: Bombay HC

Case Title: Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428

The Bombay High Court Aurangabad bench held that a motorcycle rider cannot be held even partially responsible for ramming into a stationary tempo under the Motor Vehicle's Act if the offending vehicle's parking lights were off.

Justice SG Dige observed, "When there is specific rule in respect of taking precautions by stationary vehicle, if such precautions are not taken by the driver/owner of stationary vehicle then liability cannot be shifted on motorcycle rider."

Wife Who Filed Three Criminal Cases Against Husband Fully Aware Of Legal Procedure, Cannot Claim Ignorance: Bombay HC Upholds Divorce

Case Title: Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

The Bombay High Court refused to set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court owing to the wife's non-appearance observing that a woman who filed three criminal cases against her husband would be fully aware of the legal procedure.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh rejected the wife's claim that she was illiterate and a victim of wrong legal advice, moreover that it was the court's duty to secure her presence.

"The Appellant had knowledge of the legal procedure, having filed three criminal cases," the bench observed.

Bombay HC Shocked Over Registration Of FIR Against 9-Yr-Old For Accidentally Hitting Lady With Bicycle, Orders Compensation

Case Title: 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered by police against a 9-year-old child for accidentally hitting a lady while riding a bicycle despite the exception provided in section 83 of the IPC.

"The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence", the bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S. M. Modak stated in its order.

"Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e., of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9-year-old boy", the court said and awarded cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.

Suppression Of Material Facts Ground To Refuse Temporary Injunction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431

The Bombay High Court recently held that a temporary injunction can be granted only if the applicant approaches the court without any suppression of material facts and reiterated that such an injunction can be granted only if a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to the person seeking the injunction is established.

Justice Sandeep Kumar C. More of the Aurangabad bench set aside a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit land in a property dispute as the respondents had suppressed prior litigation related to the dispute from the court.

The court referred to various judgements in which Supreme Court observed that discretion of the lower court should not be interfered with in an appeal. The court stated, "all these observations will be applicable to the party who has come with clean hands before the court. It is a principle of law that who seeks equity, must do the same."

[NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity Contraband: Bombay High Court

Case Title: H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432

The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the combined weight of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) drug and the blotting paper carrying it is necessary to ascertain if the seized drug is of a small or commercial quantity and impose punishment under the NDPS Act accordingly.

The court passed the order on a reference by a single judge on whether LSD alone or the combined weight of LSD and blotting paper would be used to determine the weight the seized drug.

A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Bharat Deshpande held that the blotter paper facilitates LSD's consumption as a whole. Therefore, it is as a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act.

Bombay High Court Says Chanda Kochhar's Retrospective Termination By ICICI Bank 'Prima Facie Valid'

Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 433

The Bombay High Court held that former Chief Executive of the ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar's retrospective termination from the bank in 2019 is a prima facie "valid termination", while dismissing her interim application in her suit against the bank.

A single bench of Justice R. I. Chagla observed that Kochhar had not come to court with "clean hands."

In the order, the court also restrained Kochhar from dealing with ICICI's 6,90,000 shares which she had acquired through stock options between October 4 and December 11, 2018 and directed her to disclose all her transactions while dealing with the stocks on an affidavit within six weeks.

Dissolution Of Maharashtra Wrestling Association Not In 'Sporting Spirit': High Court Sets Aside WFI's Decision

Case Title: Maharashtra State Wrestling Association v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 434

The Bombay High Court set aside the decision of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) to dissolve the elected executive committee of Maharashtra State Wrestling Association (MSWA), led by NCP chief Sharad Pawar observing that it was "unreasonable, illegal and not in sporting spirit".

"Decision of the Executive Committee of WFI was, not only in breach of principles of natural justice, but behind their back…the procedural fairness has been given complete go-by, before taking the impugned decision", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde stated in his order.

The court noted that under Article V(g) of the WFI Constitution, General Council alone has the power to appoint an ad-hoc committee. "Decision to appoint the Ad-Hoc Committee and further empowering the Ad-Hoc Committee to look after the day-to-day affairs and to hold the election of the petitioner-Association was equally illegal and bad in law", the court held.

Time Limit To Refer Statement Of Case By CESTAT To High Court, Under Section 130A (4) Of The Customs Act, Is Directory: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 435

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the time limit within which the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is required to refer the statement of the case to the High Court, as prescribed in Section 130A (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only directory and not imperative in nature.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor held that the CESTAT is a judicial body, over whose actions the revenue authorities have no control. It added that if the time limit within which the CESTAT is required to make a reference, as provided in Section 130A (4), is construed as mandatory, it might deprive the revenue authorities of their right to have a question of law considered by the High Court.

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.

''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".

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

'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.

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.

'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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

Notification Granting IGST Exemption To Capital Goods Imported Under EPCG scheme Is Clarificatory, Curative: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

The Bombay High Court held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) is clarifying and curative.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.

The court noted that the basic structure of GST was not to grant exemptions, but the GST Council decided to grant exemption from IGST, Cess, etc. under Section 6 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, to imports of goods for exporters availing the scheme of advance authorisation/export promotion capital goods or 100% export-oriented units up to March 31, 2018 and to continue the existing monitoring scheme for exports.

Though Minor, She Understood Consequences Of Her Act & Voluntarily Accompanied Him: Bombay High Court While Granting Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Faizan Wahid Baig v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl observing that the two were in a relationship and the girl, though minor, understood the consequences of her act. The girl was 15 years and 4 months old while the accused was about 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident.

"In a case like this, where she voluntarily joined the company of the applicant, and she had categorically admitted that she was in love with the applicant, whether that she consented for the sexual intercourse or not, is the matter of evidence," Justice Bharati Dangre stated in her order.

Remove Collars Of Unregistered Stray Dogs: Bombay High Court Directs Nagpur Civic Body, Seeks Compliance Report

Case Title: Vijay S/o Shankarrao Talewar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

The Bombay High Court directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to check whether any stray dogs in the city have been collared without proper registration and to remove any such unauthorised collars.

A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench gave this direction in a PIL filed by activist Vijay Talewar through advocate Firdos Mirza seeking action with regard to the presence of stray dogs in Nagpur city.

The court also asked all the intervenors in the case to submit suggestions regarding the manner "in which the nuisance of stray dogs must be controlled."

The court directed the NMC to consider the guidelines prescribed in the revised module for stray dogs management, rabies eradication, reducing man-dog conflict, devised by the Animal Welfare Board of India and consult the Board for the purpose of "elimination" of "nuisance" of stray dogs and taking care of welfare of the dogs.

Prima Facie Tenancy Not Forged: Bombay High Court Refuses To Appoint Court Receiver For Prime Mumbai Property In Dispute With Kuwaiti Royalty

Case Title: Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah v. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

The Bombay High Court reiterated that unlike criminal proceedings, in civil proceedings, a court can rely on statements given to the police under section 162 of CrPC. Therefore, it relied on witness statements made before CID in a criminal investigation to decide a property dispute involving the royal family of Kuwait.

Justice BP Colabawala, while dealing with a notice of motion in the civil suit, extended the interim relief granted to the eldest daughter of late Sheikh Saad, former Emir of Kuwait and restrained the defendants from creating any third-party rights in the disputed premises in a building owned by the royal family.

The court however, refused to appoint a court receiver and grant mesne profits to the petitioner holding that the petitioner couldn't make out a prima facie case that the defendants forged and fabricated the tenancy agreements with respect to the suit premises.

What Steps Were Taken To Prevent Maharashtra Bandh Over Lakhimpur Kheri Incident In 2021: Bombay High Court To Police

Case Title: Julio Ribeiro and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

The Bombay High Court asked Maharashtra Police to inform it about the measures that were taken to avert the bandh, which had been called by the then ruling Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in October 2021 to protest against the death of farmers in Uttar Pradesh's Lakhimpur Kheri. The state-wide strike was supported by NCP's alliance partners Shiv Sena and Congress.

The court admitted the PIL filed by four senior citizens, including former Mumbai CP Julio Ribeiro last year seeking penalty on the political parties and compensation for those affected.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja sought to know if the police had complied with directions passed in a 2004 judgement in DG Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra delivered by Justice AP Shah.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Artist Who Falsely Accused Wife Of Being HIV Positive

Case Title: Prasanna Krishnaji Musale v. Mrs. Neelam Prasanna Musale

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

Observing that a man couldn't claim irretrievable breakdown of his marriage after falsely accusing his wife being an "HIV patient" and refusing to co-habit with her, the Bombay High Court refused to grant the man divorce.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an artist's appeal from 2011 against a Family Court order refusing divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) (i-b) and (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"Petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. In spite of the report… which shows the test result as HIV DNA "not detected", the Petitioner has refused to co-habit with the Respondent and defamed the Respondent (wife) in the society by informing relatives and friends that the Respondent (wife) has tested positive."

Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty

Case Title: M/s. Renaissance Global Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (SEZ Rules).

In a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of Customs Duty along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, the bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor were dealing with the issue as to whether the petitioners were permitted to import new/unused jewellery for remaking after melting.

[MV Act] 'Form 16' Issued By Employer Reliable Piece Of Evidence To Determine Real Income Of Deceased For Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anjali Vilas Deshpande v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

The Bombay High Court held that Form 16 issued by an employer for income tax purposes, showing a higher remuneration than a salary slip, is a reliable piece of evidence for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,.

"We find that Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine the real income of the deceased. The reason is that Form 16 has been signed and generated by the employer of the deceased," a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse observed.

Bombay High Court Allows Nuvoco Vistas To File GST TRAN-1 For Availing Transitional ISD Credit

Case Title: Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

The Bombay High Court allowed Nuvoco Vistas, to file GST TRAN-1 to avail of the transitional Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of service tax.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that the GST TRAN-1 or revised GST TRAN-1 filed by the units or offices will be based on the manual ISD invoices to be issued by the petitioner's ISD, subject to aggregate credit not exceeding the ISD credit available to the petitioner.

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Another v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court had directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September 2022 to 31st October 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit.

[S.24 Hindu Marriage Act] Posting Job Offer Letter On Social Media Insufficient Proof Of Wife's Employment: Bombay HC

Case Title: Aboil alias Yugandhara w/o Tejpal Patil v. Tejpal S/o Premchand Patil

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

The Bombay High Court granted interim maintenance to a woman in a matrimonial matter, observing that mere social media post about a job offer does not mean that she was actually employed.

While dealing with a writ petition, Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside family court's order denying maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner-wife. High Court said that the respondent-husband didn't give actual proof that his wife was employed.

The court further reiterated that if the wife does not have a job, mere possession of having higher educational qualification cannot be a reason to altogether deny interim maintenance

Mere Filing Of FIR Against Restaurant Owner Not Ground To Cancel Its Performance License, Unless Case Results In Conviction: Bombay HC

Case Title: Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Observing that mere registration of a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel performance license of a restaurant unless the case results in a conviction, the Bombay High Court recently set aside the cancellation of performance licence of Geeta Lunch Home, a restaurant in Mumbai.

"It is settled law that until held guilty, a person should be treated as innocent, and therefore, mere registration of crime would not furnish ground to cancel license", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde held.

Arbitration Clause In An Agreement Can't Be Invoked For Another Agreement, Operating Independently: Bombay High Court

Case Title: JSW Steel Limited v. Bellary Oxygen Company Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere reference to an Agreement containing an arbitration clause, in a subsequent Agreement, will not bring about a consequence envisaged under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), to the effect that the arbitration agreement would be incorporated into the subsequent Agreement.

The Court added that the reference contemplated under Section 7(5) of the A&C Act, should be such so as to make the arbitration clause part of the contract.

The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed that the parties had categorically confined the applicability of the arbitration agreement only to the Agreement containing the arbitration clause, and that they had consciously not provided for any arbitration agreement in the subsequent Agreement.

Should Have Declared Conflict of Interest under Section 38(2) of Mumbai Cricket Association's Constitution: Bombay HC Upholds Former U-19 India Captain's Suspension From Cricket For A Year

Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

The Bombay High Court upheld former Ranji player and former captain of under-19 Indian team Kiran Powar's removal from the Mumbai Cricket Association's Apex Council, and also upheld the bar on him from playing cricket for a year.

The division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha that Powar was appointed to the Apex Council in October 2019. However, he failed to declare that his brother was appointed as a coach for MCA between 2017-18 and that his (brother's) name was under consideration.

The disclosure should've been made under section 38(2) of MCA's constitution, the order states. Under section 38(1)(v) any person who occupies a position of influence must disclose where a friend, relative or close affiliate is in the zone of consideration.

Offence U/S138 NI Act Not Attracted If The Cheque Is Given As Security for a Loan From Unlicensed Money Lender: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Monic Sunit Ujjain v. Sanchu M. Menon and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

The Bombay High Court rejected a criminal revision application in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act observing that section 138 cannot be attracted if the cheque is given as security for a loan from a unlicensed money lender.

"In cases of money lending business without license, the provisions under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted", Justice Prakash Naik observed in his order.

Land Acquisition: Evidence produced before reference court prior to HC remanding the case back should be considered if no new evidence is produced after remand

Case Title: Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court awarded a farmer additional monetary compensation for his mango trees and well in a land acquisition case. The court also enhanced the overall compensation granted by the reference court.

While hearing the case for the first time, the reference court had considered the location as well as the trees and the well and enhanced the compensation awarded by the acquisition officer. However, after hearing the matter for the second time, it discarded the evidence given the first time around and reduced the compensation. It also did not award compensation for the well and trees.

The court noted that the referral court discarded the evidence laid down before the remand without any reason. The court stated that the reference court should have considered the evidence given by appellant before remand as no new evidence was given by VIDC after the remand.

'Would Be Inappropriate To Accept Challenge Against Use Of E-Vehicles In Present Times Of Advancement': Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Samiksha Construction Company v. Ambernath Municipal Council and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

The Bombay High Court refused to accept a construction company's challenge to a civic body's tender notice mandating that the successful bidder provide hundred e-vehicles for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste. Observing that a shift towards e-Vehicles is discernible in the present times.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja also relied on Section 316 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats, and Industrial Township Act, 1965 and said that if the Administrator does not have the authority to issue fresh tender, by the same logic, the Administration did not have the authority to extend the petitioner's contract.

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings, Does Not Disentitle Party To Challenge Award On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani & Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

The Bombay High Court ruled that merely because a party participated in the arbitration proceedings, it is not disentitled from challenging the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitration proceedings were vitiated due to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the opposite party, falling foul of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that Section 12(5) of the A&C Act can be waived only in terms of the proviso to Section 12(5).

The Court ruled that in the absence of framing of issues by the Arbitral Tribunal and consideration of the stand taken by a party, granting opportunity to the party to lead evidence is of no significance. Thus, the bench concluded that the award passed by the Arbitrator was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Recording Of Reasons For Denying Furlough Not An Empty Formality: Bombay HC Directs Prison Dept To Pay Litigation Costs In Blast Convict's Case

Case Title: Mohd. Sagir Bashir Chauhan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Region, Nagpur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

The Bombay High Court directed the Superintendent of Amravati Central Prison to pay the legal expenses or the 'cost of a petition' for denying furlough to a convict on "stereotyped reasons".

"The requirement of recording of reasons under Rule 8(7) of the Prisons Rules, 1959 is not an empty formality and certainly, is not a license for passing an order recording same old reasons almost like a cliché. It is a well settled principle of law that whenever there is discretion, it comes with responsibility to exercise it reasonably, fairly and in a manner as to fulfill the object of legislation under which it is given," the court observed.

The bench of Justices S.B Shukre and M.W Chandwani added that the discretion conferred upon the sanctioning Authority is not unguided and uncanalized.

After Nearly 3 Years In Jail, Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Throwing Her Newborn From Top Of Building

Case Title: Dimple Sunil Warthe v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a woman, a house help, accused of throwing her new-born baby from the top of the building on December 5 in 2019.

Justice M. S. Karnik observed that the woman has been in custody for over 2 years and 11 months and the charge sheet already stands filed.

"No purpose will be served by prolonging the custody of the applicant – a woman any further. The possibility of the trial commencing any time soon in the near future is remote," the bench said.

No provision in IPC providing that Managing Director or Director will be vicariously liable if the accused is a company: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited v. Partha S/o. Sarathy Sarkar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

The Bombay High Court set aside summons issued to the MD and the Legal Head of a company in a criminal defamation case observing that the IPC does not provide anywhere that the Managing Director (MD) will have vicarious liability when the accused is a company.

"Moreover, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold. Even under a special statute when the vicarious criminal liabilities fastened on the person on the premise that he was incharge of the affairs of the company and responsible to it, all the ingredients laid down under the statute must be fulfilled," the court added.

Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Alleging Delayed Submission Of Caste Certificate By Sarpanch, Says He Can't Be Blamed For Situation Created By COVID

Case Title: Raviraj Rajendra Patil v. Gram Panchayat Bachni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

The Bombay High Court dismissed a plea against election of the Sarpanch of a village who could not produce caste validity certificate within one year from the declaration results due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Justice S. M. Modak observed in his order that "the factors prevailing due to COVID pandemic were beyond the control of Respondent No.2 (elected Sarpanch). In normal circumstances, the Respondent No.2 could have approached this Court when validity is not granted within 12 months. However, he cannot be blamed for not approaching in view of COVID pandemic."

'Regrettable State of Affairs': Bombay High Court Slams Maharashtra's State Mental Health Authority For Inaction

Case Title: Dr. Harish Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

Observing a "regrettable state of affairs" at the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) the Bombay High Court directed the CEO of SMHA to submit details as to when was the fund created, the sum available in it, and whether it is adequate; to prepare a proposal for a work programme as per Section 53(1)(c) of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and a statement of revenue and expenditure along with details of the budget. Further, the court sought details of all activities undertaken by the SMHA previously and the schedule of programmes of work to be undertaken.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse sought to know how the Maharashtra government plans to implement Section 54 of the Act mandating the appointment of a manager to take charge of a mentally ill person's property. The bench directed the Secretary, Department of Public Health, Maharashtra to place on record details of tasks so performed by the appropriate Government as per the Act since 2017.

Murder Charge Ought To Have Been Principal Charge, Trial Court Committed Grave Error: Bombay HC While Acquitting Husband In Dowry Death Case

Case Title: Mangesh s/o Deorao Kannake v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

The Bombay High Court stated that the trial court committed grave error in not framing principal charge of murder considering the cause of death was strangulation with post mortem drowning.

The court said that the sessions judge was confused between offence of murder on offence of dowry death and ignored that the ingredients of the two offences are totally different. The Sessions Judge proceeded on the assumption that offence of dowry death would take in its fold offence of murder, the court observed.

The sessions judge had concluded that the deceased died an unnatural homicidal death due to bodily injuries. The court said that this conclusion is misconceived and stated, "…homicide means killing of a man by a man. Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide. Therefore, there cannot be unnatural homicidal death.…in this case the death was pure and simple homicidal death".

Bombay High Court Reduces Sentence of POCSO Convict Citing Good Behaviour In Jail; Upholds Conviction Due To DNA And Medical Evidence

Case Title: Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal, while dealing with an appeal against POCSO conviction, observed that the appellant, as a convict and as an undertrial prisoner prior to that, had already been in jail for longer than the minimum sentence under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at the time of the offence and his conduct in the jail is satisfactory.

The court upheld the conviction observing that the DNA report is one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence and cannot be overlooked.

[S.311 CrPC] Statement Made In Cross-Examination Alone Cannot Be Basis To Recall Witnesses: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Niketan Dilip Paldhe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

The Bombay High Court held that a suggestion put by an accused to the complainant during cross-examination doesn't create a right in the complainant's favour to seek his own re-examination under section 311 of the CrPC, especially after he was allowed to testify the first time using the same provision.

Justice Amit Borkar therefore quashed a Magistrate's order allowing the complainant's application under section 311 of the CrPC to produce two invoices in a cheque bouncing case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

Pushed Out Of Running Train Upon Sudden Quarrel, Not Attempt To Murder: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Azad Alam Diljad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

The Bombay High Court set aside a 22-year-old man's attempt to murder conviction observing that there was no premeditation as he pushed the victim from a running train in a sudden quarrel. The court convicted him under section 308 of the IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) instead. The court considered the mitigating factors such as young age and recent marriage of the appellant and reduced the sentence to the period he had already suffered.

"Attempt To Defraud The Bank": Bombay HC Upholds Dismissal Of Employee For Claiming Reimbursement Through Fake Medical Bills

Case Title: Ajitkumar S/o Motilal Kasliwal v. Central Bank of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

The Bombay High Court upheld a peon's dismissal from Central Bank of India for claiming and receiving over 6 lakhs as reimbursement for medical bills from a non-operational medical shop, observing that dismissal is proportionate punishment for his attempt to defraud the bank.

The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute labour court's finding that the licence of the concerned medical shop was surrendered in 2010 but he kept on producing bills from that shop up to August 2013. The court did not accept the petitioner's defence that the shop was home delivering medicine to him as there was no evidence to that effect.

Bombay HC Restrains State From Issuing Appointment Orders To Engineers Selected Under EWS Quota Until Final Decision On SEBC Reservation

Case Title: Amarnath Madhukar Havshett v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

The Bombay High Court has restrained the Maharashtra Public Services Commission (MPSC) from issuing appointment letters for engineers under the reserved Economically Weaker Section Category (EWS) till the issue of diverting SEBC candidates to EWS is settled.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja noted that a petition challenging MPSC's decision to consider candidates from the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for EWS posts after the SEBC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court is pending final hearing.

Therefore, the court stayed the appointment process to 111 EWS posts and directed the MAT to dispose of the matter by January 2023.

Legal Proposition That Partnership Is Not Heritable Status And Depends On Contract Prevails Over Govt Circulars: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri Arunkumar s/o Dwarklal Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 479

The Bombay High Court recently held that the legal position, that partnership depends on contract and is not a matter of heritable status would prevail over government circulars.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke of the Nagpur bench in a letters patent appeal set aside a Single Judge order which allowed the wife of a deceased partner to be added in the firm's wine licence despite contrary provisions in the partnership deed. The Single Judge had relied on a government circular of 1994 in the decision.

A&C Amendment Act of 2015 Applies Even If Arbitration Commenced Prior, In Case It Is Stated That Amendment Act Applies: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. M/s Commercial Auto Products Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 480

The Bombay High Court ruled that where an arbitration agreement between the parties provided for the application of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), along with any statutory modification or re-enactment to the A&C Act, existing at the time being in force, it constituted an agreement between the parties as contemplated under Section 26 of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015. Thus, the Court held that the parties were bound by the 2015 Amendment Act, notwithstanding the fact that the arbitral proceedings commenced prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 23.10.2015.

The bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Abhay S. Waghwase were dealing with an arbitration agreement that provided for the applicability of the A&C Act, 1996, along with any modification introduced in the Act. The Court concluded that the said agreement clearly conveyed the intention and understanding between the parties to be bound by the 2015 Amendment Act, and that it was not merely an understanding in respect of the procedural aspects of the arbitration proceeding.

Clause Merely Providing Departmental Remedies, For Faster Resolution Of Disputes; Does Not Constitute An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Mehra & Company v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 481

The Bombay High Court ruled that the power of appointment of arbitrator by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be deemed to have a precedential value. However, the Court held that the same cannot be a reason to completely ignore the interpretation placed by the High Court in its previous decisions, in respect of the identical clauses contained in the agreement, while dealing with an application under Section 11.

The single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that where a clause merely provides for departmental remedies to a contractor for faster resolution of disputes, the same would not constitute an arbitration agreement.

Passenger Having Valid Ticket But Boarded Wrong Train Entitled To Accident Compensation Under Railways Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Union of India v. Reena D/o Kishor Kharwade

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 482

The Bombay High Court recently held that a person carrying a ticket for a different train/journey than the one he actually undertakes would also be "passenger" under Railways Act, 1989 and will be entitled to compensation in case of an accident.

"Nowhere the above said two provisions (sections 2(29) and 124-A) which define "passenger" stipulate that to be a passenger one has to hold a ticket only for any particular train on which the person is to travel. The Section merely requires a valid ticket for travelling by train carrying passengers on any date", the court observed.

Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur bench upheld the compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal in a case where the victims boarded the wrong train and fell down while trying to alight from it.

Bombay High Court Sets Aside MAT Order For Reinstatement And Back Wages Observing That The Employee Resigned Voluntarily

Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Smt. ABC and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 483

The Bombay High Court set aside Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) direction to reinstate a craft instructor at ITI Vikramgad observing that her resignation was voluntary and there was no relation between the resignation and the alleged sexual harassment she faced from the principal.

The division bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the principal of the institute had been transferred from Vikramgad almost a year before her resignation.

Bombay HC Says Man Who Killed Wife In 'Sudden Quarrel' Over Improperly Cooked Meat Not Guilty Of Murder, Reduces Life Sentence

Case Title: Suresh Madhukar Shendre v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 484

The Bombay High Court reduced the sentence of a man who killed his wife for not cooking meat properly observing that he did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and this was a case of sudden quarrel without any premeditation.

Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench said that this incident is covered under the exception 4 of section 300 (murder) of the IPC which provides that culpable homicide would not be murder if it is committed without premeditation upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the court convicted him under section 304 Part I (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC and reduced his sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Informant Is Entitled To Opportunity Of Hearing In Discharge Application Of Accused: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Prakash C. Sheth v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 485

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a first informant has a right to audience in the discharge application filed by the accused before the Court.

To observe thus, the bench of Justice Amit Borkar relied upon the High Court's 2020 ruling in the case of Prakash C. Sheth vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr, wherein it was held that the first informant is entitled to hearing in Revision Application claiming discharge by the accused.

Bombay High Court Allows Felling Of Over 20,000 Mangrove Trees For Bullet Train Project, Imposes Conditions

Case Title: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 486

The Bombay High Court allowed a plea to fell over 20, 000 mangrove trees in Mumbai, Palghar and Thane to pave the way for bullet train project from Mumbai - Ahmedabad.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed the project to be completed owing its "public importance", subject to seven conditions.

The petition was filed by the National High Speed Rail Corporation (NHSRCL) in 2020 that has undertaken the project. An intervention was filed by NGO Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) against the felling of trees. The court had reserved its order in the plea on December 1, 2020.

Written Exams For Police Constable Post Shall Not Be Conducted If Recruitment Rules For Transgender Persons Not Framed Within Three Months: Bombay High Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Arya Pujari

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 487

The Bombay High Court was hearing state's plea against Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's direction to include transgender persons in recruitment for all posts of the Home Department.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja directed the state to frame rules according to the Central Government's Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 and complete the physical tests of all candidates except transgender candidates within two and a half months, i.e., by February 28, 2023. Physical examination of transgender candidates will be done in the last fortnight, said the court. Till the rules are framed and the physical tests are conducted, the state shall not proceed with the written tests for all candidates, the court held.

Expenditure On Development Of New Product, Shown As 'Capital Work In Progress'; Deductible As Revenue Expenditure, If Project Is Subsequently Abandoned: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trigent Software Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 488

The Bombay High Court ruled that the expenditure incurred on development of a new product, in respect of the same business already carried on by the assessee, which subsequently failed to come into existence and was abandoned, is eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure.

The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Abhay Ahuja observed that though the assessee had treated the expenditure incurred on development of a new product as 'Capital work in progress' in its books of accounts, however, since no new asset came into existence which would be of an enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure incurred was revenue and not capital in nature.

Application Of Hudson's Formula For Computation Of Loss In Construction Contract, Not Unreasonable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Bharat Constructions

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

The Bombay High Court ruled that while deciding the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court is not precluded from considering the findings and conclusions contained in the dissenting opinion of a minority member of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The bench of Justice Manish Pitale, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in McDermott International Inc. versus Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006), that Hudson's formula is widely accepted in construction contracts for computation of losses.

The Court reiterated that to exercise jurisdiction under Section 34, the violation of public policy must be so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court. It further noted that what would constitute 'public policy', would depend upon the nature of transaction between the parties.

Marrying Another Woman Without Wife's Consent Constitutes Cruelty U/S 498-A IPC: Bombay High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Atul S/o Raju Dongre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

The Bombay High Court held that a husband marrying another woman during the existence of first marriage and without his wife's consent constitutes cruelty under section 498-A of the IPC.

If the performance of second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage is not interpreted as cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC, it would frustrate the legislative intent to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relative of her husband, the court held

Branding A Child As "Illegitimate" In Itself Amounts To Harassment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sudeep Suhas Kulkarni and Anr. v. Abbas Bahadur Dhanani

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

The Bombay High Court recently granted guardianship of a minor to her biological parents reiterating that welfare of the minor should be the paramount factor and it cannot be subordinated to the personal law of the minor.

Justice Manish Pitale observed that the parents' plea cannot be rejected merely because Muslim law indicates that a child born outside marriage has no right to inheritance or descent.

Commenting on the usage of the term 'illegitimate' for such children, the court said, "for no fault of the child, it is branded illegitimate for the world at large, which in itself amounts to harassment to the child."

[O VI R 17 CPC] Merely Because Proposed Amendments Relate To Same Property, Doesn't Imply That Party Can Change Nature Of Suit: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Damodhardas Govindprasad Sangi v. Fatehsinh s/o. Kalyanji Thakkar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that an amendment that completely changes the nature of the suit cannot be permitted.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside a trial court order which allowed amendment to prayers in a property dispute despite observing that the plaintiffs were bringing a new case through the amendment.

The trial court allowed the amendment stating that since the amendment is in respect of the same property, the plaintiffs can seek the prayer as to how they are entitled to the suit property.

The court said that this reason is erroneous and the trial court completely lost sight of the fact that the amendment would change the nature of the suit entirely.

Enforcement Of Lok Adalat Award Does Not Require Payment Of Stamp Duty/ Registration: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shrichand @ Chandanmal Sugnamal Panjwani v. Ahamed Ismayil Valodia and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

The Bombay High Court recently held that a Lok Adalat award, being equivalent to a civil court decree, can be enforced via an execution suit and does not require registration and payment of stamp duty for enforcement.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that Lok Adalat awards are fully executable. There is no question of a specific performance suit for the settlement which the Lok Adalat has decreed, the court held.

A Person Cannot Be Subjected To Rigors Of Externment By Relying On Same Cases, Violative Of Article 19: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kiran Dattatraya Shedke v. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

The Bombay High Court has said that subjecting a person to externment by relying upon the same cases, which were also subject matter of the previous orders of externment, is violative of Article 19 of Constitution.

Quashing a third order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nashik, Justice Prakash Naik observed that the externing authority relied on same cases that were used to extern the appellant previously. The powers of externment are exercised in most arbitrary manner, said the court.

Bombay High Court Permits Former DU Prof Hany Babu To Undergo Cataract Surgery At Private Hospital In Mumbai

Case Title: Dr. Hany Babu Musaliyarveettil Tharayil v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

The Bombay High Court allowed Delhi University (DU) associate professor Hany Babu, accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case to undergo cataract surgery at a private hospital in Mumbai.

A division bench led by Justice AS Gadkari directed Babu, currently lodged in Taloja Prison, to be escorted to the private hospital on Tuesday, further permitting hospitalisation for four days. During this time, he would also undergo diagnosis for upper abdominal pain and osteoarthritis. The court refused to widen the scope of the petition regarding treatment for other ailments as well. It only permitted a cataract surgery and diagnosis for other ailments.

'Held Father Figure, Betrayed Trust': Bombay HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 55-Yr-Old For Raping His Domestic Helper's Minor Daughter

Case Title: Harishchandra Sitaram Khanorkar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the life sentence of a 55-year-old man convicted for raping the minor daughter of his domestic help stating that the appellant, being a fatherly figure in the girl's life, betrayed her trust.

The accused was under moral obligation to protect the child but he destroyed her future life. He violated the victim's privacy and personal integrity and also caused serious psychological as well as physical harm to the victim, the court stated. The court further said that DNA testing can both exonerate the wrongly convicted and identify the guilty. Modern DNA testing can provide powerful new evidence. DNA technology as a part of forensic science and scientific discipline not only provides guidance to investigation but also supplies the Court accurate information about features of identification of criminals, the court remarked.

Applicant Old And Suffering From Multiple Illnesses; No Question Of Influencing The Investigation As He Is Not Home Minister Anymore: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Anil Deshmukh In Corruption Case

Case Title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

The Bombay High Court granted bail to former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a case regarding illegal gratification from bar owners and corruption in police transfers and posting in Maharashtra.

The court considered Deshmukh's old age and the fact that he is suffering from multiple ailments. The court noted that he has been in custody for more than a year. The charge-sheet has already been filed with respect to the issue of corruption. There is no question of applicant influencing the investigation as he is not the Home Minister any longer. There is no question of the trial concluding any time soon in the near future, the court added.

Failure To Disclose All Material Facts Is Essential To Issue Tax Reassessment Notice: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chowgule & Company (P) Ltd. v. JCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

The Bombay High Court at Goa held that failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts is an essential jurisdictional parameter that must be fulfilled before any notice can be issued for reopening the tax assessment proceedings after the expiration of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

The division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that in the absence of any allegation or a plain statement about compliance with the jurisdictional parameter, the reassessment notice cannot be ordinarily sustained.

Court Empowered To Grant Money Claim Under Section 9 Of A&C Act On Basis Of Admitted Claim: Bombay High Court

Case Title: J. P. Parekh & Son & Anr. v. Naseem Qureshi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 499

The Bombay High Court reiterated that the power of the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to grant interim measures of protection, is wider than the power under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It ruled that procedural provisions enumerated in the CPC cannot be invoked to defeat the grant of interim relief, while deciding an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre concluded that the Court is empowered to pass an order under Section 9 of A&C Act granting the applicant's money claim, on the basis of an admitted claim or acknowledged liability. It noted that the Court, while considering a relief under Section 9, is not strictly bound by the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC.

Bombay High Court Restrains Mumbai Khadi and Village Industries Association From Selling Any Goods Under 'Khadi' Mark

Case Title: Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Board of Trustees, Mumbai Khadi and Village Industries Association

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 500

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained the Mumbai Khadi and Village Industries Association from using the mark 'KHADI' and 'Charkha' logo or any deceptively similar mark to sell any product as part of its trade name, or in any manner that may amount to passing off.

The court said that prima facie, the plaintiff Khadi & Village Industries Commission made out a strong case for protection of its rights on the registered trademark and the defendant cannot avoid interim injunction by relying upon Section 34 of the Trademarks Act. The court noted that the plaintiff holds registration for its wordmark KHADI, label mark and device mark, for a plethora of classes and not limited to cloth or textile products.

Bombay High Court Allows Flat Owner To Recover Over 46 Lakhs Terrace Repair Expenses From Housing Society

Case Title: Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

The Bombay High Court allowed a flat owner to recover over Rs. 46 lakhs from a cooperative housing society as expenses for repairing the building terrace which the society had neglected since 1992.

Justice Sandeep K. Shinde also imposed cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the society payable to the flat owner who suffered due to leakage from the overhead terrace despite multiple complaints to the society.

[Portuguese CPC] Bombay HC Directs Cancellation Of Goan Couple's Marriage Registration Based On Foreign Decree

Case Title: Delfina Gonsalves v. Felix Gonsalves

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

The Bombay High Court at Goa relied on a divorce decree passed by the Family Court sitting at the Court and Tribunal Service Centre in England to cancel the marriage registration of a Goan couple.

Justice G. S. Kulkarni noted that the grounds on which the decree was passed in England are also grounds recognised and acceptable under the laws in India, including under the PCCP.

The court allowed their petition under Article 1101 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939 and directed cancellation of their names in the marriage registration book of 2004.

'Need To Give Financial Autonomy To Govt Hospitals': Bombay High Court On Non- Availability of Essential Medicines & Equipment

Case title: C.H. Sharma and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

Bombay High Court at Nagpur observed that several Departments of the Government enjoy reasonable financial autonomy and are allowed to utilise their financial powers fully by purchasing the essentials that they require for their official needs but the same kind of financial autonomy is not reserved for the Government Hospitals and the Government Hospitals are compelled to make purchases of their medicines and medical equipment through Huffkin Institute.

The court urged the Maharashtra Government to decentralize purchase of medicines and medical equipment by Government Hospitals giving them reasonable financial autonomy to serve the interest of patients.

Bombay High Court Allows Deduction On Issuance Of Completion Certificate

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Vardhan Builders

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

The Bombay High Court allowed the income tax deduction under Section 80-IB on the grounds that a completion certificate was issued by the competent authority.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S.A. Menezes, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), observed that there was no allegation by the survey team during the earlier survey conducted in the year 2006 that the assessee was not raising the construction as per the approved plan. It was also held that if there was any modification to a completed residential unit for which a completion certificate had been issued by the competent authority, the assessee could not be held responsible.

[NI Act] Complainant Putting Date On Cheque Without Drawer's Consent Renders Instrument Void: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

The Bombay High Court held that subsequently adding dates for payment without the payer's consent renders the negotiable instrument void, while refusing relief in a cheque bouncing case.

"No doubt cheque is negotiable instrument which is transferable and negotiable, presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn only when the pre-conditions are satisfied. The complainant unilaterally has put in dates on the cheques without the authority of the accused and even by not informing him. So, it amounts to material alterations. If it is so such negotiable instrument becomes void", Justice S. M. Modak held in his judgment.

Social Media Important Pillar Of Democracy As Long As It Is Not Misused: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Suraj s/o Arvind Thakare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 506

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court cautioned against the misuse of social media, while acknowledging that it has become a powerful medium for exchange of views.

"One has to be careful when one expresses one's view or makes comments that the words used are not obscene or indignified or demeaning. In other words, a balance has to be struck between the need for healthy use of social media and the need for preventing misuse of social media", a division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani observed.

The court said that India's democracy has progressed so much and tolerance to fair criticism, dissent, and satirical comments has become its hallmark. Commenting on the role of social media in democracy, the court said that it is only a pillar to democracy till it is not misused by posting content which constitutes an offence or falls under reasonable restrictions on free speech.

Vagal Inhibition Death: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Culpable Homicide Conviction, Says Accused Couldn't Have Known Their Act Would Cause Death

Case Title: Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. State of Maharashtra & Anr with connected case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

The Bombay High Court recently set aside the conviction of three persons convicted for culpable homicide of a chicken shop owner, observing that the cause of his death was unusual and they could not have known their assault would result in his death.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal convicted the three appellants for voluntarily causing grievous hurt instead. The court said that the act of pressing the victim's neck and giving blows on the chest showed that the appellants had the intention to cause injuries which could endanger the victim's life.

Prima Facie Offence Of Money Laundering Not Made Out: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Anil Deshmukh's Former Secretary Sanjeev Palande

Case Title: SanjeevPalande v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 508

The Bombay High Court observed the stringent conditions for bail under section 45 of PMLA have to be considered reasonably. A finding that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit an offence if released on bail, are required only to assess the entitlement of bail, the court said.

Justice NJ Jamadar granted bail to Sanjeev Palande, personal secretary and co-accused of former state home minister & NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in the money laundering case being investigated by ED.

No Bonafide Intention To Redevelop Slum Area On Her Own: Bombay High Court Upholds Acquisition Of Woman's Property For Slum Rehabilitation

Case Title: Deena Pramod Baldota v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 509

The Bombay High Court refused to set aside acquisition of a 5115.2 m2 property in Borivali for slum rehabilitation observing that the owner showed no bonafide intention to redevelop the area on her own and the acquisition cannot be set aside disregarding her conduct.

"It is not a position in law that irrespective of the conduct of the owner, irrespective of lack of bonafide, irrespective of neglect by owner and incapacity even after giving an opportunity to submit the scheme, the acquisition will be set aside", the court held.

Therefore, the division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed the property owner's writ petition challenging acquisition of her property.

Bombay High Court Frowns At Actor Anushka Sharma For Filing Tax Petition Through Her Tax Consultant

Case Title: Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 510

The Bombay High Court frowned at actor Anushka Sharma for filing a tax petition through her consultant instead of doing it herself.

"These Petitions are filed through Taxation Consultant of the Petitioner. There is no reason shown as to why the Petitioner cannot file these Petitions on solemn affirmation," a division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse said in the order.

The petitioner's lawyer Advocates Deepak Bapat and Sonali Bapat subsequently agreed to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one.

Bombay High Court restrains production of Kallapart, a Tamil Remake of Spanish Film Al Final De Tunel

Case Title: Manzar Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Moving Frames & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 511

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained the production of 'Kallapart', a Tamil remake of a Spanish film observing that the remake license agreement was suspicious as it referred to the global pandemic despite allegedly having been executed in 2018.

Technical Consideration Cannot Come In The Way Of Substantial Justice: Bombay High Condones ITR-filing Delay

Case Title: M/s Bhatewara Associates v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

The Bombay High Court condoned a year-long delay in filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) over "genuine hardships." The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that technical considerations cannot come in the way of substantial justice. It is neither an allegation of malafide nor an allegation that the delay has been deliberate against the assessee, the court noted.

Bombay High Court Raps Maharashtra Police For Misusing Official Secrets Act, Says Police Stations Not 'Prohibited Place' For Videography

Case Title: Rohan Tukaram @ Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 513

The Bombay High Court pulled up the police for registering FIRs under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act against those video graphing "discussions" or taking photographs inside police stations and directed the authorities to take appropriate steps to ensure the law is not misused.

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan said it would be open for the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Mumbai Police and Home Department to consider whether a senior high ranking level officer be informed when an FIR under the Official Secrets Act is lodged, in matters concerning the Police Station, to curb misuse of the Act.

The bench added that invocation of section 3 of the Act can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked.

'Arrest Memo Has No Particulars Of Offence': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Smuggling iPhones Worth 500 Crore

Case Title: Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 514

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man arrested by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for allegedly smuggling iPhones into India as the arrest memo did not contain any particulars of the case.

Alleged prior transgressions of the accused cannot justify DRI's non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory obligations, Justice R. N. Laddha said.

Failure To Furnish Certified Octroi Exemption Form; Importer Not Ineligible For Refund Of Octroi Under Section 194(2) Of MMC Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

The Bombay High Court ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

'No Investigating Officer Can Flout Procedural Requirements, Proclaim To Be Law Unto Himself': Bombay High Court Slams Cop For House Seizure

Case Title: Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

Bombay High Court severely reprimanded a police officer for seizing a man's house under section 102 of the Cr.P.C. despite seizure of immovable property not being allowed under the said provision.

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur said, "In the name of taking action against criminals, outlaws and offenders in serious crimes, no Investigating Officer can flout the procedural requirements, can breach the limits of law, can openly disrespect the law declared by the highest Court of the land and thus, proclaim himself to be the law unto himself".

The court said that IO's request to make changes in the record of a registrar is an interference with the functioning of the Sub Registrar. The intimation letter dated December 12, 2022 amounts to usurpation of power of Civil Court and also misuse of powers by the IO.

Casual Absence Of Defendant On Insignificant Date Would Not Make Court Order 'Ex-Parte': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jyoti w/o Mahesh Agrawal v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 517

The Bombay High Court held that the consequence of the absence of a defendant has to be considered and a casual absence on any intermediate date would not make the decision of the court 'ex-parte'.

Justice Vinay Joshi of the Nagpur bench added that voluntarily not cross examining the party and not advancing argument does not mean the order was ex-parte.

Bombay High Court Imposes ₹5000 Cost On Law Firm For Disclosing Rape Victim's Name In Petition

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 518

The Bombay High Court recently took strong exception to the disclosure of a rape victim's name in the petition and imposed costs of Rs. 5000 on the law firm that drafted the petition.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan observed that advocates often don't refrain from using the victim's name despite Section 228A of IPC mandating non-disclosure of the rape victim's name and a 2-year punishment prescribed for the disclosure.

"Despite Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and despite repeatedly telling the Advocates that it is an offence to disclose the name of the prosecutrix which is punishable with two years, the name of the prosecutrix is disclosed in the aforesaid petition. Hence, the law firm, who drafted the petition, to deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- with the Kirtikar Law Library within two weeks from today."

Reference Limited To Quantum Of Compensation; Dispute Non-Arbitrable If Insurer Disputes Liability: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Mallak Specialities Pvt Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 519

The Bombay High Court has ruled that where the arbitration clause only provided for reference of dispute relating to quantum of compensation payable under the insurance policy, the plea taken by the insurance company, disputing its liability under the policy, would make the dispute non-arbitrable.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre reiterated that an arbitration clause has to be interpreted strictly. The Court observed that the insurer's unequivocal admission of liability under the policy is sine qua non for triggering the arbitration clause, in absence of which the dispute between the parties fell under the excepted category, making the arbitration clause ineffective and incapable of being enforced.

Arbitration Can Be Invoked Against Party Deleted From Section 9 Application: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 520

The Bombay High Court has ruled that once an application is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (A&C Act), merely because the applicant choses to subsequently delete a party from the proceedings under Section 9, it cannot be held that the arbitral proceedings can never be invoked against such a party.

The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that a party applying for interim measures under Section 9 may wish to delete certain parties, if it finds that the interim measures sought in the facts and circumstances of the case are limited to only a few of the parties to the proceedings.

Vehicle Owner Also Liable To Pay For Maintenance, Treatment Of Animals Recovered From His Truck: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Altaf Babru Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 521

The Bombay High Court upheld an order directing the owner of a vehicle to pay towards maintenance and health inspection of the animals seized from it under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Justice Prakash Naik in the judgement noted that the Sessions Judge, while upholding the magistrate's order, has made reference to Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 which provides for joint and several liability for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals in case of offence relating to transport of animals, by the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved.

Correspondence Between Parties Cannot Overrule Clear Intention Under Agreement Providing For Optional Arbitration: Bombay High Court

Case Title: GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Vodafone India Ltd. (VIL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 522

The Bombay High Court ruled that where a clause stipulated that the parties ‘may’ be referred to arbitration, the said clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement, despite the fact that the clause conferred a binding nature upon the decision of the Arbitrator. The Court added that the said clause merely contemplated a future possibility and a choice to refer the disputes to arbitration.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that once an option is made available to a party to not be referred for arbitration, the mandatory nature of an arbitration agreement gets ripped off. It further ruled that the correspondence exchanged between the parties cannot overrule or surpass the clear intention of the parties as manifest under the terms of the agreement.

The Court said that the correspondence exchanged between the parties or any contention raised before the Court, after the dispute has arisen, is of no consequence if the agreement between the parties does not indicate an intention to refer disputes to arbitration.

Marine Paint As Part Of Vessel? Bombay High Court Confirms AAAR Decision

Case Title: Jotun India Private Limited v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 523

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the advance ruling given by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse has observed that the authority and the appellate authority followed the entire procedure and that full opportunity was given to the petitioner. There was no evidence of a violation of natural justice principles due to a lack of opportunity to be heard.All points put forth by the petitioner as to why anti-fouling paint should be considered part of the ship were taken into consideration, and the authority and the Appellate Authority took a particular view of the matter.

Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Chairman Habib Group Trusts In SC/ST Act Case

Case Title: Javed Raza Shroff v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 524

Ruling that the bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act won’t apply as the allegations against him appear to be motivated and an afterthought, the Bombay High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Chairman of Habib Group Trusts Mumbai Javed Shroff, who has been accused of sexual harassment and using casteist slurs against a teacher employed with the trust.

The bar under section 18A of the SC/ST act becomes applicable only once a prima facie case is established under Section 3(i) of the Act. The Dongri police has booked Shroff for offences under Sections 354-A, 504, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(W)(I)(II) of SC/ST Act.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Prakash Naik found unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the allegations to be vague.

Difficult To Accept A Widow With Two Children Residing In A Thickly Populated Locality Could Be Forcibly Raped On Several Occasions: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Siddhodhan alias Shudhodan s/o Namdeorao Kurule v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 525

Finding it difficult to accept that a widow with two children could be raped many times in a thickly populated locality, the Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against a man accused of raping a woman.

“In fact, there was long standing acquaintance between applicant and accused. It is difficult to accept that a widow with two children residing in a thickly populated residential locality could be forcibly raped not once but on several occasions,” said the court.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase of the Aurangabad bench was dealing with a criminal application filed by the man seeking to quash the charge sheet and FIR filed against him for offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 427, 323, 506 of the IPC.

The court noted that the alleged instances were reported for the first time six months after they began. From the supplementary statement of the woman, the court noted that the applicant is her neighbour who regularly visited her house and even helped her at times.

The court also noted that the neighbours and her parents seem to be totally unaware about the alleged incidents.

Nationalised Banks Insensitive, Lackadaisical Attitude Putting Public Money At Grave Risk: Bombay High Court Pulls Up Bank Of India

Case Title: Bank of India v. Magnifico Minerals Private Limited and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 526

The Bombay High Court pulled up Bank of India for its ‘lackadaisical attitude’ in dealing with public money, observing that nationalized banks should be made conscious of the fact that their negligence causes a great deal of loss to the public.

A division bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Kamal Khata refused to condone a delay of 579 days in filing a commercial appeal against a November 2020 order.

“... the staff / officers of public sector banks/Nationalized Banks and public undertakings are insensitive about the fact that they are working for the public and dealing with public money. Their lackadaisical attitude puts the public money at grave risk and consequently the economy of the country. Whilst applicant (a Nationalized Bank) expects the Courts to protect the interest of the public, they continue to be lackadaisical and negligent and have taken the Courts for granted, which in our opinion, is required to be stopped”.

‘Dying Declaration Concocted Document, Ought To Have Been Discarded Outright’ By Trial Court: Bombay High Court Frees Man Convicted Of Wife’s Murder

Case Title: Sandip Prakash Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 527

The Bombay High Court recently set aside a man’s conviction for murdering his wife disbelieving a woman’s dying declaration due to circumstances surrounding it. The man was convicted in March 2015.

The court noted that there was no explanation for impression of right thumb on the dying declaration instead of the usual left, and no information about whether any sedative was given to her before the declaration. Further, the endorsement of the medical officer was not supported by case papers.

The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rajesh Patil of Aurangabad bench said:

“PW-5 police head constable Sardar has not explained as to why he had taken right thumb impression of Kavita (deceased) on Exhibit-31(dying declaration). In fact it is always the practice to take thumb impression of left hand on any document….It (dying declaration) does not appear to be true and it is also not supported by the case papers, of which details were necessary, as to whether the sedative was started, what was the position of the left hand of Kavita etc.”