Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16, 2022

Karishma Prakash vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247

Syed Athar Ali and Another vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248

United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249

ABC vs XYZ 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

ABC 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

Sathyanarayana Rani v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

ROUND-UP

SSR Case: Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Celebrity Manager Karishma Prakash

Case Title: Karishma Prakash vs UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247

The bench referred the following question to a larger bench for consideration. "Whether all offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable, irrespective of the punishment prescribed and irrespective of the fact that many offences do not even mandate imprisonment as a punishment?"

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karishma Prakash, actor Deepika Padukone's former manager, in the drugs connected to actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death. The court observed that her claims of using CBD oil (cannibus) because of the rashes that broke out due to stress after receiving summons in the case, did not appear truthful. Moreover, her custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate bank transactions, allegedly to procure drugs.

S438 CrPC - Asking Accused To Mark Attendance At Police Station Not Mere Formality, It Is An Opportunity For IO To Investigate: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Syed Athar Ali and Another v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248

The Aurangabad Bench said that the condition of "police attendance" imposed by the court on an accused is not a mere formality and must be used by the police for proper investigation.

"Granting the attendance is not for the purpose of mere attendance. It is an opportunity to the Investigation Officer to make investigation in pursuance of the allegations made against the accused," the court said while granting anticipatory bail.

Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court

Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249

The Bombay High Court ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.

"Mother Can't Be Asked To Choose Between Child & Career": Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Go Abroad With Daughter

Case title: ABC vs XYZ

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

Observing that a woman cannot be asked to choose between her career and child the Bombay High Court directed her estranged husband to give his no objection for her to travel along with her daughter to Poland.

"...the impugned order has failed to consider the important aspect of right to development, being vested in the petitioner as she cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career, the impugned order is quashed and set aside."

Bombay High Court Directs National ART & Surrogacy Board To Decide Lawyer Couple's Plea For Transfer Of Cryo-Preserved Embryo

Case Title: ABC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

The Bombay High Court has directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to expeditiously decide a Mumbai based couple's plea to transfer their cryo-preserved embryos from a hospital to an IVF clinic.

This will be the first case to be decided by the National Board, counsel for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said.

The lawyer-couple approached the High Court as the hospital was unwilling to transfer their embryos citing the new Act, and also due to the ambiguity around constitution and functioning of the National board and State boards under the ART and Surrogacy Act.

Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award.

The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, however, the amendment can only add some facts to the pending challenge but it cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge.

JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Bombay High Court

Case title : Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

The Bombay High Court has held that a child in conflict with law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can file an application under Section 438 of CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Bharat Deshpande observed, " When a child in conflict with law is apprehended, his liberty is curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. affords a valuable right to a person, who is likely to be arrested or in other words, whose liberty is likely to be curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between different persons

[Order 1 Rule 10 CPC] Can't Compel Plaintiff To Wage Legal Battle Against A Person Against Their Will: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

The Bombay High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot be forced to sue third parties who have no interest or share in the suit property.

"..the plaintiff is dominus litis which latin expression means that the plaintiff is the master of the suit," the court stated. It added that the only exception to this would be if the law necessitated the presence of third party, either as necessary party or proper party.

Gadchiroli Blast Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 72-Yrs-Old Alleged Naxal Operative

Case Title: Sathyanarayana Rani v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

Bombay High Court granted bail to 72-year-old to Sathyanarayana Rani, arrested in 2019 for allegedly being a top Naxal operative and conspiring the attack on security personnel in Gadchiroli.

On May 1, 2019 fifteen security personnel from the Quick Response Team (QRT) and one civilian were killed in an IED explosion attack in Gadchiroli. The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Other developments:

Bombay High Court Directs District Committee To Decide On Alleged Unauthorised Construction Of Mosque In Two Weeks

Case Title: Arya Samaj Jalna vs The State of Maharashtra

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has directed a District Committee to decide the fate of an alleged unauthorised mosque in Jalna within two weeks.

Further, the construction stands on the road. This construction contravened a 2009 Supreme Court order in Union of India vs. State of Gujarat according to the petitioner. "…..the administration, both civil and municipal, have been lax in taking action to remove the same (unauthorised mosque)", the petitioner submitted. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the administration to remove the unauthorized construction

Don't Mind Helipads But We Want Roads Too: Bombay HC Asks State To Find Solution For Village Girls Navigating Through River & Forest To Reach School

Case title: High Court on Its own motion

The Bombay High Court sought highest level bureaucratic intervention on the issue of 'pitiable conditions' in which young girls in Satara district of Maharashtra have been taking an arduous journey to their school.

It has directed that Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to consult with other stakeholders and devise a solution by August 30.

Bombay High Court Stays Parts Of GR Barring Private Practice By Govt Doctors

Case Title: Dr. Anil Shankar Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court granted interim stay on five clauses of a Government Resolution dated 7th August, 2012 essentially forbidding government doctors from private practice in non -duty hours. A division bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala & S. M. Modak was hearing a writ petition filed by a Pune doctor seeking a writ of mandamus against the state.