Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 02 - December 08, 2024

Nominal Index:

Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619

Pradipsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 620

Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 621

Sunfresh Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 622

Anna Mathew vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 623

Harsh Mehta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 624

Judgments/Final Orders:

After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance.

SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely.

The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Strangulating Pregnant Wife To Death Not Exceptionally Violent Or Brutal: Bombay High Court Declares Husband Eligible For Remission

Case Title: Pradipsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 620

Strangulating a pregnant wife to death over unfulfilled dowry demands, is not exceptionally violent or brutal, held the Bombay High Court at Nagpur, while granting remission to a police personnel, convicted for killing his pregnant wife.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi held that the petitioner - Pradipsingh Thakur was eligible for remission under the Government Resolution (GR) issued on March 15, 2010, and therefore, categorised him for 22 years imprisonment - a category, which does not apply on offences where offender exhibited exceptional violence or brutality.

"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC

Case Title: Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 621

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power.

State Can't Treat Similarly Situated Parties Differently: Bombay High Court Orders Release Of ₹75 Lakhs Export Subsidy To Manufacturer

Case title: Sunfresh Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 622

While directing the State Government to release an export subsidy amount of Rs. 75 lakhs to a manufacturer, the Bombay High Court observed that denying the subsidy to the manufacturer after it was disbursed to a similarly situated manufacturer, would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla noted that non-payment of subsidy to the manufacturer would amount to treating identically placed parties differently, which is against the principles of fairness and non-discrimination under Article 14.

Bombay High Court Upholds Post-Graduate Medical Admission Criteria For Domiciled Candidates Who Obtained MBBS Degree Outside Maharashtra

Case title: Anna Mathew vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 623

The Bombay High Court has upheld the framework for PG medical course admission in Maharashtra which mandates domiciled candidates who obtained MBBS degree outside the State, to have secured admission to MBBS course under the All-India Quota in any Government Medical College or the All India Institute of Medical Sciences or any other Central Government Institution, to be eligible for State Quota.

A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan underscored that such a condition helps in filtering of strong credentials and merit for an outside MBBS graduate to be let into State Quota in Maharashtra.

Delisting Regulations Of SEBI Not Applicable To Delisting Of Equity Shares Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Harsh Mehta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 624

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices M.S.Sonak and Jitendra Jain has held that Delisting Regulations framed by the SEBI would not be applicable to the delisting of shares of the company in pursuance of the approval of a Resolution Plan under section 31 of the code.

Other Orders/Observations:

Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Recruitment Website From Infringing Hind Rectifiers Ltd's 'HIRECT' Trademark

The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction restraining Chrome21 India Pvt. Ltd. from infringing semiconductor manufacturer Hind Rectifiers Limited's registered trademark called 'HIRECT'.

In doing so Justice R.I. Chagla observed that the defendant company had "dishonestly adopted" mark after noting that the defendant's mark was identical to plaintiff's and was for the same class of goods and services.

Bombay High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Threat Of Leaking HDFC Life's Customer Data

In a ransomware extortion threat against HDFC Life that sought to leak its customers' confidential information, the Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction against unknown defendants from publishing, distributing or disclosing the personal data of HDFC's customers.

Justice R.I. Chagla also directed social media intermediaries including WhatsApp and Telegram to remove access to the unknown defendant's accounts and domain names, which are used to transmit the customers' confidential data.

Plea In Bombay HC Challenges MBBS Seat Allotment, Says State Applied Different Rules For Specified & Constitutional Reservations

A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging a seat allotment process for the MBBS course by the State CET Cell, arguing that the State has applied different rules for specified reservations and constitutional reservations.

Bombay High Court Stays Trial Court Order Permitting Pune-Based Food Joint To Use 'Burger King' Trademark

The Bombay High Court on Monday stayed an order of a local Court and restrained a Pune-based food joint from using the trademark 'Burger King', granting relief to the United States food giant 'Burger King.'

A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil stayed the order while admitting the appeal filed by Burger King against the Pune Court's verdict.

Ex-Cop Sachin Waze Moves Bombay High Court Seeking Interim Bail In Antilia Bomb Scare Case

Former Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Hindurao Waze, has moved an application before the Bombay High Court seeking interim bail in relation to the Antilia bomb scare case.

Waze was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on 13 March 2021 for allegedly placing an explosive-laden vehicle near Mukesh Ambanis's residence Antilia in Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 16 and 18 of UAPA for the commission of terrorist activities.