Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 8 to November 13, 2022

1. Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428

2. Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

3. 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430

4. Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431

5. H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432

6. Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 433

7. Maharashtra State Wrestling Association v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 434

8. Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 435

1. 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."

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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."

5. [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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

10. 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.

Other Developments

1. Protracted Acquisition Proceedings By Maharashtra Govt To Blame For Delay In Bullet Train Project: Godrej & Boyce To Bombay High Court

The "inordinate delay" in land acquisition for the Bullet Train project is the Maharashtra State's own doing, the Godrej & Boyce said in a rejoinder before the Bombay High Court refuting allegations of delaying the project.

Godrej and the government have been at loggerheads over acquisition of the company-owned land in suburban Vikhroli for the bullet train project since 2019. Of the total 508.17 kilometres of rail track between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, 21 km is planned to be underground. One of the entry points to the underground tunnel falls on the land at Vikhroli (owned by Godrej).

According to Godrej, the authorities have failed to fulfil the mandatory statutory requirements of the Fair Compensation Act. Godrej has challenged the constitutional validity of a proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act which permits state to grant extensions for issuance of the award.

The rejoinder called the state's conduct in the acquisition as "dishonest and malafide." It highlighted that the notifications for the extension, since January 2021, had made no reference to any action necessitating it, or hurdles caused by Godrej.