Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

1. Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

2. Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

3. Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

4. Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

5. Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda Versus State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

6. Kusum Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State Minister for Co-operation, Department of Co-operation and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

7. Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

8. Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

9. Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

10. Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

11. Shardul Shamprasad Dev v. Manjiri Shardul Dev 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

Reports/Judgments

1. 'Paraplegia Impacts Marital Life, Deprives Children Of Love': Bombay HC Grants Over ₹1 Crore Compensation To Road Accident Victim

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

Case Title: Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda Versus 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 30-31^st. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.