Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022
Sharmeen Hakim
25 April 2022 10:00 AM IST
Nominal IndexGaurav 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)...
Nominal Index
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
ROUND-UP
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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')."
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.
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.
