Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 20 To June 26, 2022

Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221

Mr. Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222

Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223

HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224

Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225

Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226

Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227

M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228

Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229

M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230

Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

Judgements/Orders

1. Mere Pendency Of A Civil Suit Is Not An Absolute Bar To A Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221

The High Court of Bombay held that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not an absolute bar to a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act as long as the petitioner can withdraw its suit before the defendant files its statement on the issue.

A single bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that it is also permissible for the Civil Court to consider an application of the plaintiff to permit withdrawal of the suit when there is an arbitration agreement, and refers the parties for arbitration.

The Court held the rights accrued to a party as the legal heir of its deceased parents in their estate are independent of its right which is recognized by a partnership deed as a legal heir of the deceased partners.

2. Bombay High Court Orders Release Of Pharmacy Student Held For Social Media Post Aimed Against NCP Supremo Sharad Pawar

Case Title: Mr.Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222

The Bombay High Court granted bail to 21-year-old pharmacy student Nikhil Bhamre, who was arrested for defamatory posts allegedly aimed at NCP president Sharad Pawar.

The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar orally observed, "He is a student; he is in custody since a month. We will pass an order granting him bail." The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against him in cases he hasn't been arrested.

3. Bombay High Court Directs Removal Of Pirated Links Of "Janhit Mein Jaari" Film Produced By Bhanushali Studios

Case Title: Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223

The Bombay High Court passed a John Doe order directing police assistance in removing all links or pirated copies of the movie "Janhit Mein Jaari" in a copyright Infringement case filed producers Bhanushali Studios Ltd.

Justice Riyaz Chagla granted ad-interim relief against unknown parties last week for removing unauthorised online links and pirated copies of the film online.

The film starring actor Nushratt Bharuccha traces the journey of a woman on a mission to sell condoms in a small town in Madhya Pradesh amidst the social taboos around sex.

4. Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Be Imposed On A Debenture Trustee Under A Scheme Of Compromise, In The Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224

The Bombay High Court held that even though a Scheme of Compromise entered into under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 overrides all the agreements between the affected parties, arbitral proceedings cannot be imposed by a Company on a Debenture Trustee by virtue of the said Scheme only, in the absence of an arbitration agreement between them.

A single bench of Justice A.K. Menon ruled that the Debenture Trustee was an independent obligation of the Company and thus, the arbitration clause contained in the Scheme was not binding on the Debenture Trustee.

5. Suit Against Raymond Ltd & Gautam Singhania : Bombay HC Allows Flatbuyers To Raise Plea That Building Constructed By Raymond Has No Occupancy Certificate

Case Title: Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225

In a relief for flat purchasers of one of the two buildings constructed by Raymond Ltd in the 1960-70's, the Bombay High Court upheld certain amendments in a suit filed against the company and its chairman Gautam Singhania.

The amendments to the plaint pertain to Raymond's alleged failure to obtain an occupation certificate (OC) even after 50-years, non-execution of a conveyance or lease deed in favour of the plaintiff society, access to the common terrace, restrictions on using the garden.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that the amendments were not malafide or irrelevant and did not cause any prejudice to Singhania. In fact, they were "relevant to decide the controversy between the parties."

6. Daughter's Glossy Instagram Pictures Not Conclusive Proof Of Income: Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance By Father To Major Daughter

Case Title: Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226

The Bombay High Court refused to modify the maintenance amount payable by a father to his major daughter observing that her 'glossy' Instagram photographs weren't sufficient proof of her income.

"It is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true,'' Justice Bharati Dangre observed.

After perusing printed copies of the daughter's Instagram profile where she claimed she earned Rs. 72–Rs 80 lakh as a model, the court upheld the family court's observation that "photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."

7. S 171 Contract Act - Bank Can't Retain Title Documents After Repayment Of Loan Citing Pendency Of Another Loan : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227

A bank cannot retain title documents of a borrower's house after repayment of a loan, citing general lien on documents, merely because of pendency of another loan, the Bombay High Court held.

The bench partly-allowed a borrower's writ petition and directed Union Bank of India to handover title documents of his flat despite recovery proceedings, for another unpaid loan by the petition's company, pending before the DRT.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that the bank's general lien on security (title document) under section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act, wouldn't apply after closure of the loan account.

8. Service Recipient Liable To Pay GST On Interest Amount Under Arbitral Award For Delayed Payment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228

The Bombay High Court held that the service recipient is liable to pay GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.

A single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.

9. "Prima Facie Construction Unauthorised": Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition For Regularisation Of Narayan Rane's Bungalow

Case Title: Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229

In a set-back for Union Minister Narayan Rane, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking regularisation of illegal portions of the plush 8 storey building in Juhu where the BJP leader resides with his family.

The court, however, granted a six week stay on the order to approach the Supreme Court.

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar observed, "Since (prima facie) construction carried out is totally unauthorised, the question of political rivalry does not arise."

10. Application To Settlement Commission May Be Filed By Any Person To Whom A Show Cause Notice Is Served Charging Him With Customs Duty: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230

The Bombay High Court held that a person who may not be an importer or exporter can still file an application under section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Settlement Commission if he is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.

A division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan observed that the term "any other person" appearing in Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 should be interpreted to mean in its literal sense. The proviso to Section 127-B provides that a bill of entry must be filed, not necessarily by the person who approaches the settlement commission, provided the person is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.

11. Children Entitled To Deceased Mother's Share In Railway Compensation Award, Even After Receiving Compensation For Themselves: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

Children can seek execution of Railway's compensation award on behalf of their deceased mother, even after receiving their own share of compensation, the Bombay High Court held.

The court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order which held that the petitioner-sons were not eligible to receive compensation awarded to their deceased mother and grandmother, having already received their share of compensation, after their father's demise in a Railway accident.

"I hold, appellants were entitled to recover the compensation that had fallen due to Lakshmibai and Indubai, but remained unpaid," Justice SK Shinde observed.

12. Defamation Cases For Reporting Details Of FIR Nothing But Attempt To Stifle Reporter: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

A factual news report on the contents of an FIR is not defamatory and initiating criminal action against the reporter in such a scenario is nothing but an attempt to stifle the scribe and coerce him to withdraw the report, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench said.

Justice Vinay Joshi quashed an FIR against the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited Vijay Darda and the Editor-in-Chief Rajendra Darda, accused of defamation under section 500 of the IPC for a report published in 2016.

The court observed that journalists wouldn't be able to report till the final outcome of a case if they were barred from reporting on the FIR, which in turn would deprive the public their right to learn about happenings.