Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 112 –169]

Bhagyashri v Jagdish 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112

Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113

Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115

Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116

2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117

Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118

Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119

Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120

Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122

Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123

Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124

Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125

Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126

Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 128

Maniar Associates LLP Vs. Vijay Niwas Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 129

Dilip s/o. Bhavanji Shah versus Errol Moraes 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 130

Ramesh and ors v Smt. Prakashkaur and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 131

Jeetendra Navlani vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 132

Concrete Additives and Chemicals Pvt Ltd versus S N Engineering Services Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 133

Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Homi Pheroze Ghandy and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 134

Aparna Abhitabh Chatterjee v Union of India2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 136

ABC v. UOI and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

Rajneesh Jaiswal vs Dil Raju & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

Ganesh Nivrutti Ghadge v State of Maharashtra and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 139

Sushama Arun Patil v The State of Maharashtra and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 140

The Commissioner of Customs II versus Axiom Cordages Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 141

J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 142

Eknath Genu Pawar & ors V Dattu Santram Haral & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 143

Gaurav Suresh Tingre v Priyanka Gaurav Tingre. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v The State of Maharashtra and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik and Ors. versus Anil s/o Hariram Malewar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 146

Akanksha Babasaheb Shinde v State of Maharashtra and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 147

Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

Akshay @ Vikas Ramesh Chavan vs Kailas Vitthalrao Shinde and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 149

Barun Kumar and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., and connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 150

Vijay Anandrao Moghe and ors v The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 151

Mayur Vasant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 152

Dipak Kalicharan Kanojiya v. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 153

P Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 154

Atul Gorakhnath Ambale Versus The State of Maharashtra. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 155

State of Goa vs Tarun Tejpal. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 156

Chetan Iron LLP v. NRC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 157

Vikramjeetsingh Dhall Proprietor of Dhall Foods and Beverages vs The Collector of Mumbai (City) & Ors; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 158

Nitin Navindas Hundiwala vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 160

Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 161

Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Corporation; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 162

Ganesh V/s. The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 163

Farhad Ginwalla & Anr. VS. Zenobia Poonawala & Ors with connected matters; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 164

Namdeo and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 165

Shemaroo Entertainment Limited vs. News Nation Network Private Limited; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 166

Muktabai and ors v State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 167

Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and anr. V The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 168

Malvika Rajnikant Mehta & Ors v. JESS Construction; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 169

Judgments/Orders

1. Either Spouse Can Claim Alimony Under Sec 25 HMA : Bombay High Court Directs Wife To Pay Maintenance To Husband

Case Title : Bhagyashri v Jagdish

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112

In a rare instance the Bombay High Court upheld two orders of the civil court in Nanded, directing a wife, working as a teacher, to pay Rs 3,000 maintenance to her husband by directing the school principal to deduct Rs. 5000 from her salary towards unpaid maintenance since August 2017.

The court rejected the wife's contention that since the couple's marriage had ended with a divorce decree in 2015, after nearly 23 years, the husband couldn't now seek monthly maintenance.

Relying on Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court said, they confer a right on the needy spouse to claim interim or permanent alimony, where a decree of restitution of conjugal rights or divorce has been passed.

2. Advocates Appointed By Legal Aid Or Court Exempt From Filing Certified Copies Of Judgement In Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title :Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113

The Bombay High Court held that the HC Office should accept appeals filed by advocates appointed by the Legal Aid Service Authority or the court, even if the advocate fails to attach certified copies of the judgements they are challenging.

"Office to accept the papers and register the same as in other proceedings. These directions would be applicable to all Advocates who are appointed either by the Court or by the Legal Aid Services Authority. Non-filing of the certified copy of the judgment shall not be an impediment to accept the papers and register the Appeals by the office," the bench said.

3. Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Tata Communications Transformation Services

Case Title: Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for different assessment years. All notices for the initiation of assessment proceedings have been issued after April 1, 2021

The issue raised was whether, after the introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, substituting the then existing provisions, the substituted provisions would survive and be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period.

The court held that when the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies that something is to be done in a particular manner, then, that thing must be done in that specified manner alone, and any other method of performance cannot be upheld. Hence, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after April 1, 2021 must comply with the amended provisions of the law and cannot be sustained on the basis of the erstwhile provision.

4. "No Overt Act" - Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 10 Tribal Accused In Palghar Mob Lynching, Refuses Bail To 8 Others

Case Title- Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to 10 tribals accused in the Palghar mob lynching cases of 2020 in which three people were lynched including two Sadhus. The court denied bail to eight others. Earlier, in January 2021, the special court granted bail to 89 accused in the case.

The court distinguished between those present at the site and merely involved in instigating the attackers from those who are seen assaulting the deceased in the video footage.

She observed that "no overt act" of violence is attributed to the 10 even though they are seen in the CCTV footage. "Now when the investigation is complete, their custody is not warranted and they are entitled to be released on bail."

5. Bombay High Court Orders 7 Days Jail For Prison Superintendent For Denying Emergency Parole To Eligible Prisoners

Case Title: Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116

The Bombay High Court held the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, Anupkumar M. Kumre, guilty of contempt and sentenced him to seven days' simple imprisonment for selectively denying prisoners emergency parole during the Covid pandemic.

"If the Court finds that the Government's (officials) action in rejecting the grant of parole to a prisoner has the effect of suffocating the Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, in that case, the Court must act to restore the rule of law and respect the residuary fundamental rights of the prisoners," the court observed.

A division bench of Justices VM Deshpande and Amit Borkar refused to accept Kumre's apology, fined him Rs. 5,000 and suspended the sentence for 10 weeks, allowing him to approach the SC for relief.

6. Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case On The Condition That Accused & Alleged Victim Shall Do Social Service For 6 Months

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case on the condition that the accused and the alleged victim shall extend social service for 6 months.

The bench of Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice S. M. Modak directed the Applicant and the alleged victim (Respondent No. 2) to obtain certificates from the respective institutes [where they have been directed to extend social services] having rendered community service satisfactorily for the period of six months.

The case was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix/alleged victim on a complaint made by her, however, later on, in Feb 2022, she filed a NOC affidavit saying that she lodged the complaint due to the compatibility issue and misunderstanding between herself and the accused-applicant.

7. Authority Under Maharashtra Police Act Can Extern Gang Members From Area Larger Than Where Criminal Activities Are Committed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118

The Bombay High Court held that the authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can pass externment orders directing externment of a person from much larger area than the one of his illegal activities. However, such order should be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction.

A division bench of Justices VK Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More observed, "Even though the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are registered only in the Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar, but considering the latest modes of transportation, it appears that the authorities below have rightly restricted the petitioners from entering into entire Ahmednagar district to prohibit their criminal activities."

8. Strictly Follow Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines : Bombay High Court To Ola, Uber

Case Title: Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119

The Bombay High Court asked cab aggregators, including Uber India and Ola, who were recently granted provisional licenses under the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020 framed by the Union government, to strictly follow the guidelines.

The court also asked the Maharashtra government to consider customer feedback in the nature of complaints against the aggregators to find out if there is deficiency in the grievance redressal mechanism.

The bench said it did not have the powers to legislate and order conditions for better grievance redressal to be added in the guidelines, it would however consider issuing directions.

"The deficiencies will be addressed in a time-bound manner. The state is at liberty to give suggestions to implement guidelines. The mechanism will have to be consumer-friendly," said a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik.

9. Period Of Suspension Of Govt Servant Not To Be Treated As 'On Duty' Where Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120

The Bombay High Court, through a bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap, held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, then if he is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he is not entitled for regularisation of the period of suspension by treating him to be on duty. The discretion belongs to the competent authority.

In view of registration of FIR under Sections 419 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, a worker in the in the Ordnance Factory, he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules, 1965).

In trial, the Judicial Magistrate observed that considering the nature of evidence on record the charge against the accused (petitioner) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On that premise the said accused were acquitted. The Petitioner had sought revocation of suspension and regularization of suspension period as 'on duty' based on this acquittal.

10. Dissolution Of Marriage By Mutual Consent Permissible Under Muslim Personal Law: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121

Observing that a family court can dissolve the marriage of a Muslim couple by mutual consent under the Muslim Personal Law, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceeding against the husband based on the couple's amicable settlement in the Family Court petition.

The court noted that under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937 all property, marriage, dissolution of marriage including mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship gifts, trusts and trust properties concerning Muslims is governed by the Act.

Moreover, the Family Court was empowered to adjudicate a suit regarding validity of a marriage or a person's matrimonial status under section 7 (1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, the bench said.

11. 'Lamb Has To Be Protected In Fight With Lion': Bombay High Court To Extend Deadline For MSRTC Employees To Resume Duty Till April 22

Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122

The Bombay High Court said that it will order protesting employees of the State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to resume work by April 22 without the fear of administrative action, while concluding hearing in a contempt petition filed by MSRTC against them for not resuming work.

"When there is a fight between the lion and the lamb, the lamb has to be protected," the bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed. The court said it would extend time till April 22 from April 15 for protesting employees to resume work.

Earlier the court had asked MSRTC if it would be willing to allow all its employees to resume work irrespective of criminal cases filed against some of them, and view the situation "compassionately" as it was a question of their livelihood.

However, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy for MSRTC on Monday said it would not be possible to do so for those employees against whom FIRs were registered for resorting to violence.

12. Child Adopted By A Widow Not Entitled To Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123

The Bombay High Court answered in the negative the question of whether the principle of relation back is applicable in case of a son adopted post the demise of the husband of the adopting lady.

A single judge bench of Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni observed, "an adopted son may have rights in future in the property which the family may acquire after his adoption, with regard to the property which has vested in any particular person before his adoption, the adoption does not vest in him any rights with regard to that property."

The Bench was ceased of a property dispute whereby an adoptive son had sold properties belonging to the late husband of his adoptive mother.

13. Every Accused Must Not Be Present At The Spot; Can Still Be Tried As Part Of Chain Of Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124

The Bombay High Court recently considered whether an FIR can be quashed against a petitioner who is not referred to as an accused in the FIR and who was not present at the spot.

A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale & S. M. Modak reiterated the difference between normal criminal law and crimes under of Maharashta Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (MCOC) stating that, "It is not always necessary that every accused must be present on the spot. There are various circumstances in the chain of circumstances. In that chain, it may happen that set of accused persons may be present at the spot, some of the accused have played a role prior to commission of offence and some of them have participated post commission of offence."

Respondent did not dispute that the present Petitioner is not being named as an accused in the FIR. However, he submitted that the investigation so far carried out discloses involvement of the Petitioner in an abetting the main assailants.

14. Undertrial Prisoners' Right To Health: Bombay High Court Permits DHFL Promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan To Undergo Treatment At Private Hospital

Case Title: Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125

In a relief for DHFL promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan, the Bombay High Court allowed him treatment for a limited period at a private hospital while setting aside the trial court's order to shift him to the State-run JJ Hospital.

Justice PD Naik observed that it was a settled principle of law that an undertrial prisoner also had fundamental rights and that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to health.

15. Court May Increase Quantum Of Compensation In Motor Accident Claim, Irrespective Of Who Files Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126

The Bombay High court recently dealt with an appeal by an Insurance Company against the quantum of compensation awarded to an accident victim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, in the course of this appeal, raised the issue of insufficiency of the compensation awarded.

Single Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre noted that though the claimant had not filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation,

"The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and provide for some solace to a victim, who meet with an accident or to the family of the victim who is a sufferer, when the bread-earner is disabled or succumb to the said accident. The duty of the Court in granting compensation to the victim or to his family, for its survival and meet the harness is to ensure 'just' compensation, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant."

16. Writ Petitions On The Ground Of 'Exceptional Circumstances' Against Order Passed By The Arbitral Tribunal Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

The Bombay High Court ruled that remedy against orders passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies elsewhere and the petitioners, aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 16, cannot file Writ Petitions under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground of 'exceptional circumstances'.

A bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar held that it is impermissible for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even on questions with respect to the jurisdictional competence of an Arbitral Tribunal, except in cases where the arbitral tribunal is a statutory tribunal created by a statute.

The High Court observed that a Writ of Mandamus was sought against the respondents, who were private financial entities, and neither of them were 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, the Court ruled that they were not susceptible to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

17. "Deserves No Sympathy": Bombay High Court Enhances Punishment, Sentences Watchman To Death For Employer's Dacoity & Murder

Case Title: Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 128

The Bombay High Court awarded the death penalty to a watchman found guilty of dacoity and the "calculated and cold blooded" murder of his employers, a plan he executed with two of his friends and three former employees of the couple.

The bench upheld the life imprisonment awarded to five accused but enhanced watchman Shiv Kumar Saket's punishment on the State's appeal as he had "betrayed the trust of his employer."

18. Occupier Of Flat Entitled To Transit Rent For Period Of Dispossession During Redevelopment : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Maniar Associates LLP Vs. Vijay Niwas Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 129

The person in possession of a tenement being re-developed will be entitled to transit rent in the absence of a court order stating otherwise, even if he or she doesn't own the premises, the Bombay High Court has held.

In the present case, the HC also asked the developer to put the occupant in possession of the redeveloped property if his dispute with the flat owner is not finally decided by then.

19. Court Does Not Have Adjudicatory Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dilip s/o. Bhavanji Shah versus Errol Moraes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 130

The Bombay High Court ruled that the Court does not have the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to consider the legality of the reasons set out by the arbitral tribunal in its order permitting the examination of a witness.

The Single Bench ruled that once the arbitral tribunal had formed a prima facie opinion that a particular witness is required to be examined by a party in the arbitral proceedings, the reasons laid down by the tribunal in its order cannot be revisited and scrutinized by the Court, since proceeding under Section 27 of the A&C Act are not in the nature of an appeal and the Court does not have any adjudicatory powers under Section 27.

The court observed, "The fact remains that as respondent no.3 (occupier) is in possession of the tenement in question and would now be handing over possession of such tenement to the petitioner/society… The party who is dispossessed, would be entitled to the transit rent as it is such party who is put to hardship."

20. Provision For Seeking Adjournment Under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC Is Rule Of Procedure, Directory In Nature: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ramesh and ors v Smt. Prakashkaur and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 131

The Bombay High court adjudicated how Rules of procedure (in this case provision of seeking adjournments under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC) are indeed "handmaids of justice" and are meant to advance ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same.

Accordingly, the court agreed to grant more opportunities for evidence to a recalcitrant Petitioner at his own responsibility, on payment of heavy costs of Rs. 1 lakh.

21. FIR For Obstructing Public Servant Against Param Bir's Alleged Aide Jeetendra Navlani Quashed By Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jeetendra Navlani vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 132

The Bombay HC quashed an FIR against one Jeetendra Navlani who was alleged to be connected to the former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh by the investigating officer of the case, Anup Dange. Navlani is a developer and owner of a restaurant & bar in South Mumbai, was booked under Section 186 IPC for causing obstruction to a public servant from performing his duty in November 2019.

The bench quashed the FIR on the grounds of contradictory witness statements. Moreover, that after the incident the police officials had not brought the Applicant to the police station nor effected arrest and a notice was issued after two days of incident to the Applicant calling upon him to give his statement, as such Applicant bonafidely believed that he is treated as a witness in the incident.

22. Tax Invoices Containing Reference To Arbitration, Does Not Constitute An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Concrete Additives and Chemicals Pvt Ltd versus S N Engineering Services Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 133

The Bombay High Court has ruled that acceptance of tax invoices by the opposite party, containing a reference to arbitration, does not lead to the presumption that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

The Single Bench held that unilateral invoices cannot bring about an arbitration agreement between the parties.

23. Court Can Appoint An Arbitrator During The Pendency Of An Appeal Against An Award, Set Aside On Reasons Other Than Merit : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Homi Pheroze Ghandy and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 134

The Bombay High Court held that when an award is set aside for other reasons and not on merit, the parties are well within their rights to initiate fresh arbitration in respect of the same claims and pendency of an appeal against such an order is not a ground to refuse the appointment.

The Single Bench of Justice A.K. Menon has further held that an objection as to the claims being barred by Res Judicata since an appeal is pending before the Court is outside the limited scope of judicial examination permissible under S. 11 of the A & C Act. The Court held that invocation of the arbitration cannot be subjected to the fate of the appeal.

24. S.29A Of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Valid; Consumer Forums Can Pass Orders Without President: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Aparna Abhitabh Chatterjee v Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 136

The Bombay High Court recently regarded a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – whether the exercise of powers by the District Consumer Forum without the President being its party is illegal? A bench answered the question in the negative.

In light of the settled presumption of constitutionality in favour of Legislation unless the contrary is shown, the bench concluded that there is no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

25. Right To Be Forgotten | Man Facing Difficulties In Getting Job Due To An Order By Which He Was Acquitted: Bombay HC Orders Its Removal From Court Website

Case title: ABC v. UOI and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

The Bombay High Court ordered the removal of an acquittal order from the Court's website on a plea moved by a person/accused who was facing difficulties in getting job due to the acquittal order passed in his favour.

Essentially, he had moved to the Court arguing that even though the order was one of acquittal, still it was descriptive, and it had the potential to put a bias in the minds of his prospective employers, customers, bankers & investors.

26. Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Shahid Kapoor Starrer "Jersey"

Case Title: Rajneesh Jaiswal vs Dil Raju & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

The Bombay High Court cited the delay on the petitioner's part in approaching the court while refusing interim relief. The court observed that "in the event prejudice is caused to the Defendant by delay of the Plaintiff in seeking ad-interim relief, Courts will not entertain such application and / or grant ad-interim relief."

27. Right to Fair Compensation Act | 'Land' Includes Things Attached, Benefits Arising Out Of It: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Ganesh Nivrutti Ghadge v State of Maharashtra and ors.

Citation: LiveLaw2022 (Bom) 139

The Bombay High Court dealt with a petition seeking directions to pay proper compensation in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

A bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi noted that under the Act, 'land' includes everything that grows on it. It said,

"the term 'land' defined under Section 3(p) of the Act of 2013 includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus there is no gainsaying in contending that the factors which are not allegedly considered cannot be agitated before statutory authority."

28. Minister Can't Interfere In Zilla Parishad Administration and Order Teacher's Transfer Merely Because Complaint Was Also Made To Him: Bombay High Court

Case Title :Smt. Sushama Arun Patil v The State of Maharashtra and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 140

A Rural Development Minister doesn't have the power to interfere with the affairs of the Zilla Parishad by cancelling the transfers orders of teachers merely because a teacher complained to him, the Bombay High Court ruled.

The court observed that the Minister's order directing the Zilla Parishad CEO to cancel the transfer of certain teachers was without jurisdiction, therefore the CEO's subsequent order complying with the Minister's direction would be bad-in-law.

29. Appeal Against CESTAT Order, On Classification Of Goods, And Determination Of Customs Duty Lies Before The Supreme Court: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs II versus Axiom Cordages Ltd

Citation: LiveLaw2022 (Bom) 141

The Bombay High Court ruled than an appeal from an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), involving the question with respect to classification of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, would lie before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, since it is primarily related to determination of the rate of customs duty applicable.

The Bench held that to determine whether there was a short levy of customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the revenue department has to decide the classification of goods in order to ascertain the rate of customs duty to be levied, therefore an appeal involving issues relating to Section 28 of the Customs Act was maintainable only before the Supreme Court.

30. Only PCIT Can Sanction Reassessment Notice After Expiry Of 4 Years, Not ACIT: Bombay High Court

Case Title: J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: LiveLaw (Bom) 142

The Bombay High Court held that after four years of expiry from the end of the relevant assessment year, only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (PCIT) can accord the approval to the reassessment notice and not the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).

The court said, "even if for a moment we agree with the view expressed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, it still applies to only cases where the limitation was expiring on March 31st, 2020. In the case at hand, the assessment year is 2015-2016 and, therefore, the six years limitation will expire only on 31st March 2022. Certainly, therefore, the Relaxation Act provisions may not be applicable. In any event, the time to issue notice may have been extended, but that would not amount to amending the provisions of Section 151 of the Act."

31. Jurisdiction U/S 100 CPC Is So Limited That Even Wrong Or Grossly Inexcusable Finding Of Fact Cannot Be Interfered With: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Eknath Genu Pawar & ors V Dattu Santram Haral & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 143

The Bombay High Court adjudicated a challenge to a lower court order seeking re-appreciation of evidence. The single judge Mangesh S. Patil held that jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is so limited that even a wrong or grossly inexcusable finding of fact cannot be interfered with and hence refused to do so.

The case arose as Eknath Genu Pawar obtained a declaration from the trial court of his being the exclusive owner in possession of the suit properties on the basis of a will executed by one Laxmibai on 30.06.1956. Lower appellate court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit.

32. Non-Custodial Parent Can't Be Deprived Of Right To Spend Quality Time & Enjoy Company Of Children: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Gaurav Suresh Tingre v Priyanka Gaurav Tingre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

The Bombay High Court observed that non-custodial parent cannot be deprived of his right to spend quality time and enjoy the company of the children. Moreover, the children also have right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated, "the children also have right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents. This is essential for personal development and overall well-being of the children."

The Single Judge permitted the Petitioner-father to four days' access to the children and referred the matter for mediation so that the parties may arrive at an amicable settlement.

33. Number Of Students In Govt Aided Schools Inflated To Divert Public Money: Bombay HC Seeks Action Against Culprits, Appoints Committee To Curb Malpractices

Case Title: Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v The State of Maharashtra and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

The Bombay High court recently constituted a committee to curb alleged malpractices in the Maharashtra Education Department while asking the government to continue its belated efforts to remedy the situation by recovering monies.

A bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Sanjay Mehare appointed a three-member committee on the issue of alleged practice of showing inflated student strength so as to appoint more teachers in aided and private schools.

The petitioner alleged that the numbers of students shown to have been admitted by various schools are inflated by large number of schools in connivance with some of the officers of the State Government who are empowered to grant sanction for grant-in-aid and other facilities to these schools for imparting education to these students resulting in fraudulent diversion of crores of rupees of public money.

34. Court Lacking Jurisdiction To Appoint An Arbitrator, Cannot Do So Based No Objection By The Opposite Party: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik and Ors. versus Anil s/o Hariram Malewar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 146

The Bombay High Court ruled that a Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator when the only proceeding before it is an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, solely on the ground that the opposite party has not objected to the appointment of an Arbitrator.

A single bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that even if an arbitration clause exists, appointment of an Arbitrator can only take place in accordance with the law. The Court added that merely because no objection is endorsed by the opposite party, a Court will not be foisted with the jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator.

35. Bombay High Court Orders Issuance Of Provisional Caste Certificate For Higher Studies While Student's Uncle's Caste Certificate Is Under The Scanner

Case Title: Akanksha Babasaheb Shinde v State of Maharashtra and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 147

The Bombay High court held that till final withdrawal of caste certificate of Petitioner's uncle by the competent authority, she is entitled to benefits sought for by relying upon the said Certificate.

A bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and G.A. Sanap noted that even though there are genuine concerns regarding the validity of the Petitioner's uncle's caste certificate and the same is under reconsideration, yet until it not withdrawn, the Petitioner is entitled to benefits accruing from it.

36. Dept. To Decide Whether Corrected Form TRAN-1 Would Be Entertained As Per Transitional Provision Under GST: Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayers To Correct Form TRAN-1

Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not.

The petitioner/assessees filed Form TRAN-1, but inadvertently did not claim approximately Rs. 13,17,956 on the Form TRAN-1. There was no option available to the petitioner to revise the Form TRAN-1 after December 27, 2017. There was also a further condition of revising the form only once before the due date. The form TRAN-1 was not accepted. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner missed out on the claim of approximately Rs. 13,17,956, the petitioner prayed for permission by making a representation to correct the said mistake, which was not allowed.

37. Motor Accident Claim | Can't Compute Compensation On Basis Of 45% Permanent Disability In Case Of 100% Functional Disability: Bombay HC

Case Title: Akshay @ Vikas Ramesh Chavan vs Kailas Vitthalrao Shinde and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 149

The Bombay High court held that the Motor Accident Tribunal at Aurangabad has committed an error in accepting the permanent disability of the claimant of a motor accident at 45% when it is a case of 100% loss of earning capacity due to amputation of leg.

Single judge Shrikant D. Kulkarni also awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation for loss of marriage prospects and another lakh for loss of happiness, amenities and entertainment of life.

38. "Will Impact Students & Staff": Bombay High Court Refuses Closure Of Only Engineering College In Gondia District Of Maharashtra

Case Title: Barun Kumar and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 150

In a victory for the employees and students, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to grant closure permission to the only engineering institute in Gondia district of Maharashtra, observing that the management doesn't have an unfettered right to close down an institution at will as the closure would impact the education/studies and staff employed therein.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Anil Pansare, in a judgement on Tuesday, upheld the Vice-Chancellor of University's order, rejecting the closure permission sought by the management of the Manoharbhai Patel Institute of Engineering and Technology – established and run by the Gondia Education Society since 1983-84.

According to the institute's website, Varsha Patel is the president of GES. She is the wife of former union minister Praful Patel and daughter-in- law of late philanthropist and politician Manoharbai Patel.

39. Transfer Of Tribal Land Impermissible Without Collector's Permission Even If Land Transferred To Another Tribal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vijay Anandrao Moghe and ors v The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 151

The Bombay High court recently observed that provisions of Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Code) do not make any distinction based on the status of the purchaser or transferee. Hence, transfer of tribal land is impermissible without Collector's permission even if the land is transferred to another tribal.

Single Judge Rohit B. Deo stated that, "The Legislature has in its wisdom not exempted tribal to tribal transfer from the requirement of previous sanction from the Collector. Presumably, the Legislature was conscious of the fact that a tribal is vulnerable and could possibly be exploited or induced to part with the agricultural land even by a fellow tribal who is in a more dominating position in life. It is precisely to prevent such exploitation that the previous sanction of the Collector is statutorily mandated."

40. Orders Passed By Divisional Commissioner U/S 60 Maharashtra Police Act Are Quasi-Judicial, Must Be Supported By Reasons: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Mayur Vasant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 152

A full bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner's orders on externment under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are not administrative orders but are quasi-judicial in nature and the officer is duty-bound to give reasons for the same.

Consequently, the matters challenging the order passed under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 would lie before a single judge bench and not a division bench under Chapter-XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The The Bench comprising of Justices SS Shinde, Prakash D. Naik and Sarang V. Kotwal said –

(i) The power under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and the orders passed under that Section are quasi judicial orders.

(ii) There is a duty to give reasons, at least in brief, while disposing the appeals under Section 60 of the Act of 1951.

41. "No Room For Arrogance, No License To Intimidate The Court": Bombay HC Reprimands Advocate Over Allegations Of Bias, Delayed Hearing

Case Title: Dipak Kalicharan Kanojiya v. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 153

The Bombay High Court observed that while an advocate's frustration over a delayed hearing was understandable, but it didn't give them a license to intimidate the Court and make reckless allegations against a Judge polluting the very fountain of justice.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai reprimanded a lawyer for making allegations of "partiality" and "unfairness" against the court during a bail hearing and said that the advocate's conduct was "unbecoming of an advocate".

"An advocate as an Officer of the Court is under an obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. There is no room for arrogance and there is no license to intimidate the Court, make reckless accusations and allegations against a Judge and to pollute the very fountain of justice."

42. 'Seriousness & Severity Of Crime Would Remain Till Such Time The Accused Is Pronounced Not Guilty': Bombay HC While Rejecting Varavara Rao's Bail Plea

Case Title: P Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 154

Refusing to grant permanent bail on medical grounds to Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad accused poet Varavara Rao the Bombay High Court said that prima facie observations regarding "seriousness and severity" of the crime he is accused of would remain till he is pronounced "not guilty."

Therefore, based on Rao's sound clinical summary dated December 15, 2021, and the allegations against him of being the "main conspirator," he was not entitled to medial bail, the court held.

"Seriousness and severity of the crime would remain till such time the accused is pronounced not guilty of the crime alleged to have been committed by him. Role attributed to the accused is serious. He is one of the main conspirators. Therefore, in our opinion, on the medical ground the accused is not entitled to get bail", a division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap observed.

43. Delay In POCSO Cases Benefits Accused, Minor Victim May Forget Incident With Passage Of Time: Bombay HC Issues Directions For Expeditious Trial

Case Title: Atul Gorakhnath Ambale Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 155

The Bombay High Court observed that delay in trials in cases of sexual abuse often lead to re-victimization and ignominy, as the trial process itself makes the victim re-live the horrific experience and in cases of small children, due to their vulnerability, it may lead to further trauma.

Single judge Revati Mohite Dere said,"this Court has come across several cases, where the child/victim's evidence is not recorded for years and hence, it would be appropriate to issue some directions to the trial Courts conducting cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO')."

44. 'Inferences About Victim's Conduct May Need A Revisit' : Bombay High Court Grants Leave To State To Appeal Against Tarun Tejpal's Acquittal

Case Title: State of Goa vs Tarun Tejpal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 156

Noting that certain observations by the trial judge about rape victim's conduct need to be revisited, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) granted leave to the State of Goa to appeal against the order acquitting Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 sexual harassment case.

The Court rejected Tejpal's preliminary objections against the State's leave to appeal.

A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and RN Laddha also observed that inferences against the victim regarding legal consultation also needed to be looked into.

"Based on this evidence, perhaps, some of the learned Additional Sessions Judge inferences about the victim's conduct may also need a revisit. The inference from the victim's conduct of consulting some lawyers before lodging her complaint may also require a revisit. Finally, the contention about the alleged admissions in the messages or the proper scope of such statements also requires consideration. These are brief reasons, not intended to be exhaustive for a moment", the bench said in the order.

45. Court Can't Grant Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act, If The Contract Is Determinable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chetan Iron LLP v. NRC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 157

The Bombay High Court held that an application for interim relief in the form of specific performance of the contract would not be maintainable when the nature of the contract is determinable.

A single bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that specific performance cannot be granted in respect of an agreement that can be terminated by either of the parties without assigning any reasons. It held that Section 14(1)(c) and Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act would be attracted when the interim relief for specific performance is prayed for in respect of an agreement that is in its nature determinable.

46. Seized Foreign Liquor Emptied Into Nearest Nallah? Bombay HC Startled At Excise Procedure Of Destroying Contraband

Case Title: Vikramjeetsingh Dhall Proprietor of Dhall Foods and Beverages vs The Collector of Mumbai (City) & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 158

Startled at a statement made by the Maharashtra State Excise Department that it will destroy seized foreign liquor by emptying it "into nearest available nallah (stream)," the Bombay High Court directed the officials to act prudently, cautiously and in accordance with law, while doing so.

"We expect the Excise Department to act prudently, cautiously and in accordance with law. If this means that the Excise Department must get clearance from a Pollution Control Board then so be it. In its anxiety to destroy this liquor, the Excise Department must not endanger the larger public health," directed a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar earlier this month.

47. Boarding Crowded Mumbai Local Train A "Calculated Risk"; Not A "Criminal Act" : Bombay HC Awards Compensation To Injured Passenger

Case Title: Nitin Navindas Hundiwala vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 160

The Bombay High Court observed that boarding a crowded train for a Mumbaikar was a 'calculated risk' not a 'criminal act' and directed the railways to pay over Rs 3 lakh compensation to a septuagenarian who slipped and fell right after boarding a crowded train in 2011.

Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the Railways Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the senior citizen's claim and held that the incident would fall within the meaning of "untoward incident" under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act.

"If in the daily chores, a passenger attempts to gain an entry, into an overcrowded train and is pushed by other passengers, resulting into his fall, there is no reason why such incident cannot fall within the ambit of 'untoward incident' and [it] wasn't an instance wherein the Railways were exempt from liability."

48. Bhima Koregaon Case : Bombay High Court Dismisses Gautam Navlakha's Plea To Shift Him To House Arrest

Case Title: Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 161

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by senior journalist Gautam Navlakha seeking to shifted out of Taloja Prison and be placed under house arrest, instead, in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Caste violence case.

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap said that whatever grievances Navlakha had in prison could be placed before the trial court for appropriate action.

"Petitioner would be at liberty to bring to the attention of presiding officer of special NIA court the grievances in respect of difficulties faced by him and the said officer directed to ensure grievance redressed within parameters of law."

49. Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 162

The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act.

The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an erga omnes effect or involves third party rights only after it has been admitted by the adjudicating authority, however, before its admission, there is no embargo on the power of the court to decide on an application filed under S.11 of the A&C Act for the appointment of an arbitrator.

50. Evidence Of Last Seen Together By Itself Not Conclusive That Death Was At Hands Of Accused: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ganesh V/s. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 163

The Bombay High Court recently observed that the evidence of 'last seen together' by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the death was at the hands of the accused.

Justices Sadhana S. Jadhav and S.G. Dige observed that there was enough evidence to show that the accused, Ganesh, had abandoned the deceased, Sanjay, after the incident and the fact that they were together by itself won't contribute to the allegation that the death was at the hands of the accused.

51. "Arrogant, Incomprehensible Conduct": Bombay High Court Judge Bars Lawyer From Appearing Before His Bench In Any Matter

Case Title: Farhad Ginwalla & Anr. VS. Zenobia Poonawala & Ors with connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 164

Justice GS Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court has directed a lawyer not to appear in any matter before him following the advocate's "incomprehensible" and "most arrogant" conduct in a clutch of applications pertaining to an arbitration dispute.

The court stopped short of initiating contempt proceedings against advocate Premlal Krishnan considering his career, following a written apology cum undertaking not to repeat his disrespectful conduct in the future.

"Such an apology is being accepted, however with a caution that in no court Premlal Krishnan, shall breach the assurance which is set out in the undertaking/affidavit…"

52. Son Not Expected To Brand His Father As 'Swindler': Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction From Self-Acquired House Of Elderly Parents

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 165

The Bombay High Court evicted a son from the self-acquired house of his parents and held that a son cannot claim that his parents have lost mental balance.

Justice Rohit Deo observed that, "In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a 'swindler' or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance. The allegations that the aged parents have been physically assaulted, that the other son was also assaulted and that visitors are prevented from entering the residential house, are not specifically traversed."

It was further observed that the emotional and physical well-being of the aged parents cannot be ensured unless the petitioners vacate the self-acquired residential house.

53. Shemaroo Films' Copyright Infringement Suit: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against News Nation, Suspects Defence Of 'Fair Use'

Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Limited vs. News Nation Network Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 166

The Bombay High Court regarded that the defence of de minimis and fair use has to be seen through the prism of the fact that the parties involved, Shemaroo Entertainment Limited and News Nation Network, had entered into an agreement for a non-exclusive license.

The suit was filed by Shemaroo, which is primarily involved in film production, after premature termination of its non-exclusive licensing contract with News Nation, alleging that the latter continued to exploit its content sans an agreement.

In this background, Justice N. J. Jamdar observed, "It is not the case of the defendant that there was a qualitative change in the nature of the exploitation; during the continuance of license agreement and post termination. If for an identical activity, the defendant had obtained license for valuable consideration, on first principles, these defences (of de minimis and fair use ) may not be readily available to the defendant."

54. Employees Can't Seek Condonation Of Interruption In Service For "Enhancing" Pension: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Muktabai and ors v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 167

The Bombay High court recently sought to answer whether an employee can seek condonation of interruption in service to "enhance" the pension, where the employee already has qualifying service for pension.

A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Mehare stated that, "the purpose of condoning the interruptions in service is to make an employee entitled to the pension by adding the days of his service and not to enhance the pension for the reason that the pension is to be calculated and paid on the basis of the last salary drawn on the substantive permanent post."

55. Kopardi Rape Case: Bombay High Court Permits Convicts To Pursue Academics In Jail

Case Title: Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and anr. V The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 168

The Bombay High Court welcomed the desire expressed by two convicts in the Kopardi rape and murder case to pursue further studies in jail.

A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale and SM Modak allowed the petitions even as their death penalty is pending confirmation.

The duo, Jitendra Shinde and Nitin Bhailume were convicted in November 2017 for the rape and murder of a minor at Kopardi village in 2016. Advocate Rebecca Gonsalvez representing them said the two now wanted to pursue their academic career even though they are lodged in Yerawada Central Jail, Pune, by seeking admission to Open Universities.

56. Agreement On The Name Of The Arbitrator Would Not Amount To A Waiver Of Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Malvika Rajnikant Mehta & Ors v. JESS Construction

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 169

The High Court of Bombay held that simply because the arbitration agreement provides for the name of the arbitrator, the same would not amount to a waiver of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act.

The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the use of the word "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 21 means that the parties can dispense with the requirement of giving a notice of arbitration, however, the mere fact that the parties have named the Arbitrator would not imply that the parties have agreed to waive the requirement of the notice contemplated under Section 21 of the Act.