Bombay High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2023
Amisha Shrivastava
12 April 2023 10:30 AM IST
Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 175]World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 2Vanashakti and Anr. v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 3Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023...
Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 175]
World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
Vanashakti and Anr. v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Anil Vishnu Anturkar v. Chandrakumar Popatlal Baldota and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Alakshit S/o. Rajesh Ambade v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd v. MAD (India) Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
Shobha w/o Deepak Thakre and Ors. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
Edufocus International Education LLP v. Yashovardhan Birla & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
Manas Mandar Godbole v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Vinod v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
Abdul Rasul Nurallah Virjee and Anr. v. Regal Footwear 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Kantabai v. Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
Chanda Kochhar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
Namdeo s/o. Digambar Giri v. Seema 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
Nitin Pandurang Shejwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
Anubha Srivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
Johnson and Johnson Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Ravindra Adhar Gosavi 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Sonali Shivram Dupare and Ors. v. Thane District Central Co-operative Bank and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
Asian Paints Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Deepti Prakash Ghate v. NKGSB Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
Shirish B. Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
Vrushali Jayesh Kore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Red Apple Chandrarat Travel 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Sandesh Jedhe v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Sunita Kumari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
TLG India Pvt Ltd v. Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
Prakash Jankilal Jaju v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Prashant Trivedi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Nijal Navin Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Venugopal Nandllal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Sunita w/o Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Ghanshyam Upadhyay (Intervener) in Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. RBEP Entertainment Private Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
Axis Trustee Services Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
Yoko Sizzlers v. Yokoso Sizzlers 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Pradeep Sharma v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
National Centre for the Performing Arts v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
GoDaddy.com LLC & Anr. (Applicants) in Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Aanit Awattam & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
Shivaji S/o Rajaram Take v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Shivkaran s/o Ganpati Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Chanda S. Khetawat & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
Freedom City Ventures v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Zenobia Poonawala v. Rustom Ginwalla & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
NAREDCO West Foundation v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
All India Wine Producers Association v. Deputy Secretary and Assistant Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
Amit S/o. Suresh Pali v. Rita D/o. Ramavtar Pal 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
PSP Projects Limited v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corp. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
Gajanan v. Surekha 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh v. Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Uttam Anna Lande v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Hirabai Dattatray Mankar v. Dodke Associates through its Partner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
Rahul Giridhar Pathade v. Collector of Nasik, State Excise Department and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
Milind Shantilal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
Shaikh Shaukat S/O Majit @ Majid Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
M/s. Nanak Construction v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Kirvan Vendsol Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
Rekha @ Vidhila Faldessai v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
Vaibhav Padmakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Gaurav s/o Santoshkumar Dhaye v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
Rashmi Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
Anjuman Moinut Tulba & Ors v. Education Officer Primary & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
Bombay Lawyers Association v. Jagdeep Dhankar & others 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
National Highways Authority of India v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Vaishali Chaburao Katore v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Chandaba w/o. Gangaram Pauyed v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
RMS v. MOP 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Yasin Gulab Shikalkar v. Maruti Nagnath Aware and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Sudam s/o. Ganpat Kothambire and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Hasmukh Solanki v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises and Anr. v. Rajesh Jugraj Madhani 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar v. Deputy Police Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Shashikala Kishan Yewale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Shailendra Kumar Dubey v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
Pushkaraj Shekharrao Indurkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
Ekta Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Anand s/o Shivaji Ghodale v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
Quess Corp v. Netcore Cloud Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
Late Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
Konark Life Spaces v. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
Abbott India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
Ashwini Sanjay Babar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
Sajjan s/o Hirchand Gusinge v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
CLSA India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Mohammed Mussaviruddin Mohammed Naziruddin v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
BST Textile Mills Pvt Ltd v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Dr. Sunil s/o Nilkanth Washimkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
Arvind S/o Sarjerao Devkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner State GST Bhavan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Deluxe Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Narayani Associates 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
Ms. M. V. Nordlake GmbH v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
ACC Ltd. v. Dr. Rustum Samboyce And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
Naresh Goyal v. Directoratate Of Enforcement And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
M/s. Perfect Auto v. Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra through its proprietor Vishal Nandkishor Gangawane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CBIC 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
Kalpesh Shantikumar Mehta & Ors. vs. NKGSB Co-op. Bank Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Sandeep Kudale v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Trustees Association of India v. Competition Commission of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Deepak Marda v. Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Mayur Vaijanath Tawde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
Manohar s/o. Dnyaneshwar Pote v. Collector, Jalna and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
Jane Cox v. Bar Council of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
Shoyab Mehtab Ali v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
Lok Developers vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
Rakesh Tulsidas Rathod V/s. Jayraj Vishram Vapikar & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Shaikh Sana Farheen Shahmir and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
Rita Kirit Joshi v. New India Assurance 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
M/s. Bora Mobility v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
Lyka Labs Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chiripal Industries Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
Jetair Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
Mahendranath Vidyaniwas Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
Mantras Green Resources Ltd. & Ors. v. Canara Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
Dagadu Shivaji Lodhe And Anr v. Bhaurao Fakira Dongre And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
Murlidhar Waman Bombale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Surendra G. Ghodake 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
Seawoods Estates Ltd. v. Mona Mohan And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
Terezinha Martins David v. Miguel Guarda Rosario Martins and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
National Textile Corporation Ltd vs. Elixir Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Mahadev Gaur Bishwas v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
Suresh s/o Devidas Malche v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
Anil G. Karkhanis v. Kirloskar Press and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Subhash Pawar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
Ram Omprakash Patil v. Secretary, Government of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
Rama Arvind Katarnaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
John Peter Fernandes v. Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
Avenue Supermarkets Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
Mehrunnisa Kadir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
Sunil and Ors. v. Jayashri 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
Paromita Purthan v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
Uday v. Rupali 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
Parshuram S/o Rambhilakh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
Mamata Banerjee v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Himalayan Club v. Kanwar B. Singh & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
Salman Khan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
Nalini @ Madhavi Madhukar Murkute v. Deepak Manohar Gaikwad and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble @ Sakshi Vithal Khatri and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
Reports/Judgments
Dispute Between Service Providers Can’t Be Referred to Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
The Bombay High Court ruled that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) is a self-contained Code, intended to deal with all disputes arising out of the Telecommunication Services provided in the country and therefore, the dispute between service providers which is likely to affect the consumers/subscribers, cannot be referred to arbitration. Thus, the Court concluded that the dispute between the service providers fell under the umbrella of the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in view of Section 14(a) (ii) of the TRAI Act.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in cases where a special statute has ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by constituting a judicial forum, the parties cannot waive their right to approach the specially created forum by opting for arbitration.
Case Title: Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court rejected an appeal filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a prime accused, seeking discharge in the case of 2008 Malegaon blast that killed six people and injured over 101.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Prakash Naik pronounced the order. "Even otherwise indulging into an activity of a bomb explosion causing the death of six persons is not an act done by the Appellant in his official duty," said the court and rejected his claim that a sanction was required to prosecute him
"After minutely perusing entire record we are of the considered opinion that, the offence/s alleged against the Appellant under Section 120-B r/w 302 and other related sections of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of UAP Act, of commission of murder of six persons and causing serious to grievous injuries to about 100 persons is nothing to do with his official duty. It has nothing to do or related in any manner with the discharge of the official duty of the Appellant," said the court.
Case Title: Vanashakti and Anr. v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
The Bombay High Court observed that the Mahim Nature Park (MNP) cannot be exploited for development so long as it is reserved as a "Nature Park" in the Development Plan.
"So long as the Development Plan shows it as a Nature Park, no other activity can be carried out," the court said.
The division bench headed by ACJ SV Gangapurwala disposed of a PIL filed by NGO Vanashakti and activist Zoru Bhathena after the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition officer clarified that the Nature Park has been excluded from the Dharavi Redevelopment project.
Case Title: Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Once the court extends the judicial custody of an accused, the refusal of sanction to prosecute will not invalidate the extension of custody, the Bombay High Court has held while refusing to grant default bail in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
The division bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench observed that the power of Special Judge under MCOCA to extend judicial custody by 90 days and power of Additional DGP to give sanction for prosecution under MCOCA have different object.
Though the petitioners applied for bail 30 minutes before the charge sheet was filed, the right to seek default bail would arise only on the next day, the court said adding that for the purpose of ascertaining when the period of authorized custody comes to an end, only the number of completed days is relevant and not the time at which the event having the effect of rendering the custody as unauthorized took place.
Case Title: Anil Vishnu Anturkar v. Chandrakumar Popatlal Baldota and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Communications between lawyer and client are privileged and a lawyer cannot be compelled to confirm such a communication in a trial even if it is already disclosed to the trial court by another party, the Bombay High Court held while setting aside a witness summons to a lawyer.
Justice Abhay Ahuja was dealing with Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar’s plea challenging a witness summons directing him to appear before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in a Civil Suit.
Facts should not be received in evidence unless they are both relevant and admissible, the court said. Therefore, the documents which are privileged under section 126 or 129 of the Act though relevant cannot be produced or received in evidence, the court said.
Grounds of Bail Not Considered - Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order
Case Title: Alakshit S/o. Rajesh Ambade v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the grounds on which bail was granted to an accused have to be considered by the detaining authority while deciding whether the accused needs to be preventively detained or not. The court said that the grounds of bail granted to an accused form an important part of the material available against the accused and the detaining authority has a duty to consider it.
Clause Contained In The Tax Invoice Amounts To An Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd v. MAD (India) Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High Court held that the clause contained in the invoices, which clearly stipulates a reference to arbitration, deserves to be construed as an arbitration clause.
The single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that any document in writing exchanged between the parties that provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and would amount to an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Shobha w/o Deepak Thakre and Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court held that an accident while boarding a train in an inebriated state would disentitle a person from receiving compensation under the Railways Act of 1989.
Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur bench dismissed an appeal filed by 38-year-old deceased Deepak Thakare’s wife Shobha against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 14th June, 2019. The appeal was filed under section 23 of the Act. The court observed that the MLC report from the community health centre showed the deceased had an alcoholic breath indicating he was intoxicated while boarding the train. This report was signed by an officer on duty and also not denied by the applicant. The tribunal is correct in holding that the case of the appellants would fall under exception (d) to section 124A of the Railways Act, the court observed.
Case Title: Edufocus International Education LLP v. Yashovardhan Birla & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
The Bombay High Court reiterated that dispute between parties arising under the Leave and License Agreement, emanating from a relationship of a licensor and licensee, cannot be referred to arbitration in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act), as per which the Small Causes Court alone would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar, however, observed that an Agreement to Lease merely contemplates to create a lease in the future and thus, the bar under Section 41 will not apply to the dispute arising under it. Thus, specific performance of the Agreement to Lease can be sought even before an Arbitrator, the Court held.
Case Title: Manas Mandar Godbole v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
The Bombay High Court held that while owners may treat dogs as their children, but dogs aren’t human beings and hence a person cannot be booked under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC pertaining to endangering a human’s life for a dog’s death.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed an FIR against a Swiggy food delivery partner who met with an accident with a dog while he was riding his vehicle and the animal was trying to cross the road. While both were injured, the animal succumbed to its injuries.
The court observed that the officers 'defied logic' by booking the accused under IPC Sections 279, 337 and 449 and imposed cost of Rs. 20,000 on the state. The bench directed that the cost amount be recovered from the concerned officers’ salaries.
Case Title: Vinod v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench carved out an exception to continue the compassionate appointment of a junior clerk after the demise of his married brother on the grounds that he was caring for his sister-in-law and nephew since 2013.
A division bench of Justices Sandeep Shinde and Vrushali Joshi directed the Education Officer to grant his approval to continue the petitioner’s service in Wadha school under the compassionate appointment category but also upheld the Scheme against the petitioner.
According to the government resolutions dated December 31, 2002 and September 21, 2017 a married deceased’s widow and child are the only persons eligible for compassionate appointment, not the dependent brother. Siblings would be considered only if the man was unmarried.
The exceptional circumstance in the present case was that the deceased’s wife had given her no objection to her brother-in-law’s appointment. The bench noted that “since Petitioner is looking after family of the deceased since 2013, we think, it would not be appropriate to discontinue the Petitioner’s services in the above facts and circumstances.”
The government pleader submitted that for the scheme of compassionate appointment an unmarried man’s siblings and a married person’s spouse and children are only to be considered as dependents. The court upheld the scheme but directed the Education officer to make an exception.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Pune's Regal Footwear From Using 'Regal' Trademark
Case Title: Abdul Rasul Nurallah Virjee and Anr. v. Regal Footwear
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained Pune’s Regal Footwear from using the mark ‘Regal’ in a trademark infringement suit filed by owners of Mumbai’s Regal Shoes.
Justice R. I. Chagla, while deciding a notice of motion in the suit held, “The Plaintiffs case of passing off is made out particularly considering that the rival marks are identical and used for identical goods/services……infringement is made out in view of the prima facie findings that the Plaintiffs have been able to establish user since 1954 including goodwill and reputation and the Defendant being a junior user, as well as other prima facie findings of the Defendant failing to establish honest concurrent use as well as its case of acquiescence not having been made out.”
Case Title: Kantabai v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
People fall from trains in India, injure themselves and die, the Bombay High Court recently observed and awarded compensation to the kin of a senior citizen who fell off a running train and died in a brutal accident case after a visit to his son in 2011.
While the family claimed that heavy rush in the train had caused the fall, the railways contended that there was no jerk or chain pulling that could have led to an accident. Moreover, no one had reported any untoward incident, therefore the family shouldn’t be granted compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act.
Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that merely because there wasn’t evidence of a jerk or chain pulling incident didn’t mean that the appellant hadn’t died in an untoward incident as defied under Section 123(c)(2).
Bombay High Court quashes spying case for taking photos inside Police Station
Case Title: Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
People are free to walk into police stations to lodge a complaint and taking photos inside would not come under the Official Secrets Act, the Bombay High Court has reiterated while quashing an FIR against a man for taking photos of a complaint inside a police station.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice R.N. Laddha in a recent judgment held:
“Police Stations are places, where people are free to go/walk in, to lodge a complaint/FIR, to redress the wrong/injustice done to them. It is always open for the police to put up a board prohibiting photography but if one does take a photo/video, certainly, the said act would not come within the ambit of the Official Secrets Act.”
Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
Merely saying that the accused has not co-operated and disclosed true and full facts of the case, cannot be the sole reason for arrest, the Bombay High Court said in its detailed order granting interim relief of bail to Ex-ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan further sought accountability from judicial officers remanding accused and ordering their detention after arrest.
High Court Stays Andhra Pradesh Govt's Decision To Prohibit Holding Of Public Meetings On Roads
Case Title: Namdeo s/o. Digambar Giri v. Seema
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court dismissed a man’s petition challenging the grant of maintenance to his wife, observing that a claim regarding wife's refusal during cross examination to undergo DNA test for ascertaining the paternity of girl child is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference.
Justice Kishore C. Sant of the Aurangabad bench said: “Mere submission that question was asked in cross-examination to wife that whether she is ready to go for DNA test, where she has answered that she is not ready itself would not be sufficient to draw adverse inference against the wife.”
Case Title: Nitin Pandurang Shejwal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court refused to interfere in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s decision to refer a dispute regarding the 2019 recruitment of police constables to a larger bench despite disapproving the procedure adopted by the tribunal.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep v. Marne said since the reference has already made to larger Bench and since both the sets of parties are already before the Tribunal, ends of justice would meet if the larger Bench of the Tribunal is permitted to decide the controversy before it.
While refusing to interfere with the tribunal's decision to refer the matter to a larger bench, the court made it clear that its decision is not a precedent. The court further said the Tribunal adopted procedure "unknown to law" by recalling its order in the first set of applications while hearing the second set, the court said. It is "incomprehensible" how the tribunal passed any order in the first set of applications while hearing altogether different applications, it added. The tribunal should have decided the second set of applications by directing impleadment of all applicants of the first set, the court said.
Would Not Be Appropriate: Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Postponement Of JEE Mains 2023
Case Title: Anubha Srivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
The Bombay High Court refused to restrain National Testing Agency from conducting JEE Mains 2023 examination on the scheduled dates.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne said that any orders passed to postpone may have a cascading effect and extraordinary circumstances do not appear to exist for restraining NTA from holding JEE (Main) in January 2023. “Lakhs of students must have been preparing for the examination. On the basis of the present PIL on behalf of a child right activist, it would not be appropriate to direct postponement of the examination scheduled pan India.”, the court said.
Case Title: Johnson and Johnson Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court quashed the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration’s orders cancelling Johnson and Johnson’s license to manufacture its baby powder at the Mulund factory.
Johnson and Johnson will now be able to manufacture and sell its baby powder.
A division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice SG Dige said FDA's action was unreasonably delayed and therefore arbitrary. "An administrator cannot use a hammer to kill an ant," said the court.
The court said it is not reasonable that the moment one sample from the batch is found not of standard quality, the license is cancelled. "It's an extreme approach. [There is] nothing to show FDA has adopted such a stringent standard with other J&J products or manufacturers," the bench said.
Observing that a watchdog like FDA is necessary, the court however said it cannot protract proceedings for weeks and months.
Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court granted interim stay on transfer of pending adoption matters to the District Magistrates and directed the courts to continue with adjudication in such cases.
The division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice S. G. Dige, in a writ petition challenging the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2021 to the extent that the word ‘Court’ is replaced with ‘District Magistrates’, said that if the petition succeeds, any orders passed by the District Magistrates will immediately become vulnerable.
“While considering interim relief, we must bear in mind the primary objective which is the interest of the children and infants who are to be adopted whether these are domestic or foreign adoptions. The concerns of the adoptive parents are also involved," the court added.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Ravindra Adhar Gosavi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Observing that a minor contradiction in witness deposition wouldn’t render the entire evidence of the witness unacceptable, the Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of an Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) of MSRTC for allegedly demanding and accepting bribe.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne of Aurangabad bench allowed a writ petition by MSRTC challenging Labour Court’s decision to quash the ATI’s dismissal. There was a contradiction between the charge sheet in the domestic inquiry and the complainant’s testimony about who exactly accepted the bribe amount.
“existence of minor contradiction is deposition would not render the entire evidence of a witness completely unacceptable...Considering the overall evidence of the Complainant Shri. Dhivare, it does appear probable that the Respondent not only demanded the gratification but also probably accepted the same. Whether he accepted it himself or through Shri, Kayasth is not the relevant factor”, the court said.
Gross Irregularities: Bombay High Court Quashes Recruitment Process of Thane Co-operative Bank
Case Title: Sonali Shivram Dupare and Ors. v. Thane District Central Co-operative Bank and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High quashed the recruitment process of Senior Banking Assistant and Junior Banking Assistant of the Thane District Central Co-operative Bank finding gross irregularities in the recruitment process. The court noted that no affidavit has been filed by any respondent denying the affidavits alleging irregularities. Therefore, it court concluded that there were gross irregularities in the recruitment.
The court reiterated that the word ‘may’ can mean ‘must’ or ‘shall’ in context. When discretion is conferred on a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word ‘may’ should be construed as a command, the court stated relying on Mohan Singh and Ors. v. International Airport Authority.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order On Asian Paints In View Of Full Disclosure
Case Title: Asian Paints Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment order as the assessee, Asian Paints, disclosed fully and truly all facts material and necessary for the assessment.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes observed that the reasons do not disclose what material or fact was not disclosed by the assessee.
The petitioner/assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling paints, varnish, primer, etc. The business is carried on through various dealers who purchase the goods from the petitioner on a principal-to-principal basis and sell them to the ultimate customers.
Case Title: Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
After stinging observations from the Bombay High Court, bike taxi aggregator Rapido undertook to close down all its services – bike taxi, rickshaw and food delivery in Maharashtra till January 20, 2023.
Rapido informed the court that the app has now become inoperative in the state.
A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Justice SG Dige told the petitioner it would dismiss the petition with costs if they refused to shut down their services after the bench was informed that Rapido doesn’t have license to operate any of these services.
The court was hearing Rapido’s plea challenging the state’s refusal to grant licenses to entities like it.
Case Title: Deepti Prakash Ghate v. NKGSB Co. Op. Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Bombay High Court set aside an award passed pursuant to an arbitral reference made under Section 84(1) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), since the award debtor was not a member of the Co-operative Society.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that a dispute, which is not covered under Section 84 (1) of the MSCS Act, would not be capable of being referred to arbitration. Thus, the Court concluded that the arbitral award was rendered without jurisdiction against the petitioner/ award debtor.
The principal borrower, M/s. Erica Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was advanced a loan and cash credit facility by the respondent Bank, NKGSB Co. Op. Bank Ltd (a Multi-State Co-operative Society). A Deed of Guarantee was executed and the petitioner, Deepti Prakash Ghate, along with other parties, were made guarantors.
Case Title: Shirish B. Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court refused to interfere in redevelopment of over 207 BDD (Bombay Development Directorate) Chawls at N.M. Joshi Marg, Naigaon and Worli in Mumbai observing that the projects have all the necessary environmental clearances.
“The environmental clearance given by the Competent Authorities, does not demonstrate that the construction activity is against the provisions of any rules and regulations in force. The contention of the Petitioners cannot be accepted.”
Division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar disposed of a PIL challenging the redevelopment schemes of the century-old chawls claiming that the redevelopment will jeopardize the health of the residents.
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 498A IPC Against Judicial Officer
Case Title: Vrushali Jayesh Kore v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against a judicial officer accused of subjecting her brother’s wife to physical and mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice R. M. Joshi of Aurangabad said that this case of Section 498A IPC is being used to settle personal score.
The court reiterated that an individual’s right to reputation and dignity is an integral part of Articles 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution.
The court said that unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences such as mental drama, humiliation, and monetary loss. “It is to be noted that loss of character or bruised reputation cannot be restored even by judicial reprieve”, the court added.
Assessee Not Entitled for Deduction without A Certificate Declaring The Warehouse as Part Of The Port: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
The Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of a certificate declaring the warehouse to be part of the port.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) has declined to issue a certificate that the warehousing of the assessee is part of the port.
The ITAT held that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down for the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4).
Section 80IA allows a deduction of 100% of profits obtained from businesses for a period of 10 consecutive years out of 15 years from the date of its commencement.
The court, while dismissing the appeal, held that a similar claim was also denied to the assessee for the year 2009–10 in the absence of the certificate.
Case Title: Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court quashed the Reassessment Order and held that between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of the formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new has happened. There was no new information received, nor was there any mention of new material on file.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes observed that the Assessing Officer has simply accorded a fresh consideration and come to the conclusion that the assessee ought to have claimed the benefit of deduction under section 35ABB, which would have resulted in reducing the allowance under section 32. In the absence of any tangible material, there was nothing but a case of change of opinion, which thus does not satisfy the jurisdictional foundation under Section 147.
Case Title: Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Red Apple Chandrarat Travel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
The Bombay High Court ruled that the ground of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, can never be a ground which would involve any “basic notions of morality or justice” for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court reckoned that the arbitral tribunal had concluded that the claims raised by the claimant were not barred by limitation, by recording a finding of fact that there was a running account between the parties. The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni ruled that the said finding of fact cannot be re-examined by appreciating evidence under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The Court further observed that it was not a case where an ex-facie and a brazenly time barred claim or a deadwood was awarded by the arbitral tribunal, of a nature which would shock the conscience of the Court.
Case Title: Sandesh Jedhe v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Bombay High Court dismissed with cost, a PIL seeking culpable homicide charges against Dr. Anahita Pandole for allegedly causing the death of businessman Cyrus Mistry and his friend Jehangir in a vehicular accident in September 2022.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that there is no public interest in the PIL. Further, it is not substantiated with evidence.
“When a petition is to be filed in court, facts have to be substantiated with evidence and more particularly when a PIL is filed. Petitioner is not in know of the facts and isn't connected in the incident. In the present scenario, petition ought not be filed and not with such loose statements.…Charges are to be framed by the magistrate...We do not find public interest present in the PIL”, the court stated.
Section 498A IPC | Mental Cruelty Possible Even If In-Laws Reside Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sunita Kumari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court recently observed that mental cruelty is an abstract concept and can be committed even if in-laws reside separately.
"The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty … Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person … Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place," the court observed.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur dismissed with costs an application filed by relatives of a man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them instituted by his wife.
The court said that there is a prima facie case from the allegations despite the applicants residing away from the complainant. Cruelty is not only physical but can also be mental, the court observed. FIR forms a foundation of a criminal case. No strong edifice of a criminal case can be built unless its foundation is sound if the foundation is strong, it would give rise to a strong criminal case which is the case in the present matter, the court said.
Case Title: TLG India Pvt Ltd v. Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court ruled that while the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of arbitrator, is to be examined by the Court, the limitation aspect of the substantive claims is to be looked into only by the arbitral tribunal and not by the Court. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre added that the only exception to this is, if the claim being referred to arbitration is hopelessly barred by limitation, which is apparent from the admitted facts and documents.
The Court further remarked that, “Seeking adjudication of claims after a long gap of time definitely causes more injustice than justice, particularly when certain rights are vested in the parties and it would become greatly impossible to dislodge these rights”.
Case Title: Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court ruled that orders, instructions or directions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 or under the Explanation to Section 279 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot put fetters on the power of income tax authorities under Section 279(2) to consider an application for compounding of offence, by prescribing a period of limitation.
The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Valmiki SA Menezes, took note that Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for compounding of certain offences, either before or after the institution of proceedings, does not provide any rule of limitation.
Thus, the Court held that the CBDT “Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2019”, dated 14.06.2019, which create a limitation on the time within which an application under Section 279 (2) is required to be filed, is of no consequence. The said Guidelines do not take away the jurisdiction of the income tax authorities to consider an application for compounding of offence at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, the Court said.
Case Title: Prakash Jankilal Jaju v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed a 14-year-old case filed by actor Priyanka Chopra against her former manager Prakash Jaju with the actor’s consent following an amicable settlement between the parties.
According to the settlement, Jaju tendered an unconditional apology with “folded hands”, adding that he had no intention to hurt or intimidate Chopra, who is now settled in the USA.
The case pertains to an FIR of 2008 wherein Jaju was booked under sections 506(II) (criminal intimidation), 509 (words or gesture intended to insult the to a woman’s modesty) of the IPC and section 67 of the IT Act, for sending certain objectionable messages to Chopra and certain words spoken during a telephonic conversation.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prakash Jadhav heard the matter in chambers wherein Chopra appeared through video conferencing and said she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Separate Legal Aid Panel For SEBI
Case Title: Prashant Trivedi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court recently refused to entertain a PIL seeking a separate panel of lawyers for matters in Securities and Exchange Board of India, observing that the case has been straightway filed without approaching the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority or the responsible Authority.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne said, “The PIL cannot be entertained unless the Authorities concerned have denied to entertain the cause of the Petitioner. On record we do not find that a particular person had approached Respondent No.2 for legal aid and was denied. In absence of specific pleadings in that regard, it would not be appropriate to pass orders in the present PIL”.
SEBI earlier filed an affidavit stating that the IPEF Regulations and Guidelines in respect of legal aid for legal proceedings are in existence since 2009. Further, it stated that legal aid is provided whenever the need arises.
Bombay High Court Upholds/Rejects Pune RTO's Refusal To Grant License To Bike Taxi Aggregator Rapido
Case Title: Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
The Bombay High Court today rejected a petition by Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd (Rapido), a bike-taxi aggregator, against Pune RTO's refusal to grant it a license for plying two and three-wheeler taxis.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice SG Dige pointed out that there are discrepancies in Rapido's stand as on one hand, it is saying license cannot be rejected on the ground of the absence of State policy on two-wheelers while on the other hand, it cites the absence for a state policy for non-compliance with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator's Guidelines 2020 issued by the Centre.
The court added that the Centre's Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 guidelines do not restrain the State Government from making its guidelines. It added that an aggregator cannot assume permission to ply.
Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Sufficient to Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Nijal Navin Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
The Bombay High Court directed the passport authorities to not reject a man's passport renewal application merely because of pendency of criminal proceedings against him, observing that mere pendency of proceedings is not sufficient to deny him the right to renew passport.
“In the facts of the case merely because the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC is pending against the applicant, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to deny the right of the applicant for renewal of the passport," the court said.
Justice Amit Borkar set aside the magistrate’s order refusing to grant permission for renewal of license of a man booked for offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
Case Title: Venugopal Nandllal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
In its detailed order directing the interim release of former Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the Bombay High Court stressed on the need to mention concrete reasons for arresting an individual and on the court’s duty to record its satisfaction while remanding a person to the police custody.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan cited the non-compliance of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, while granting relief to Dhoot.
The arrest memo is sans particulars of how the statements are inconsistent or how Dhoot failed to cooperate as he had already attended CBI’s office but couldn’t be confronted due to absence of other accused, it said. Regarding the remand orders dated 26, 28 and 29 December, 2022, the court noted that the presiding officer simply observed that he has perused the case diary and found that the offence is of serious nature. The bench said it is clear that the court hadn’t made an effort to scrutinize the remand application or the case diary.
Injuries Need Not Occur Inside Police Station For Custodial Death: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sunita w/o Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
The Bombay High Court held that for a death to be a custodial death, it doesn't matter whether the injuries occurred inside the police station or at an outpost as long as the injuries were inflicted when the deceased was in any manner in the custody of the police.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase of Aurangabad further said, “State is the protector of the life of its citizens if it’s employee undertakes torturous act under the guise of power, then it has to compensate such citizen or legal representative of such citizen”
The court referred to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and reiterated the Apex Court’s observation that custodial death is one of the worst crimes in a civilized society.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Upadhyay (Intervener) in Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Bombay High Court's division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan rejected the intervention application of Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay in a criminal case and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 on him.
The court observed that only a victim was allowed to intervene in a criminal trial. A stranger cannot be permitted to intervene or interfere with the criminal proceedings, the court observed
The court added that an attempt was made to browbeat the court.
Upadhyay had filed the application to oppose Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot’s plea for bail alleging illegal arrest by the CBI.
Case Title: Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. RBEP Entertainment Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay High Court ruled that if the plaintiff seeks relief in a suit against parties, some of whom are not signatories to the arbitration agreement, the matter cannot be mechanically referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale remarked that amendment of Section 8 by the 2015 Amendment Act and the decision of the Apex Court in Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020), does not indicate that if an arbitration agreement is existing between some of the parties to the suit, all the parties must be forced to participate in arbitral proceedings pursuant to the reference made by the Court under Section 8.
Reassessment Notice after 4 Years should have the Sanction Of PCIT: Bombay High Court
Case Title: MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
The Bombay High Court ruled that issuing a reassessment notice after four years is subject to the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT).
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has ruled that the approval for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 ought not to have been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but from the authority specifically mentioned under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The court allowed petitioner’s challenge to a notice dated March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that it was issued after the four-year period, which required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 151(ii) of the Act.
Case Title: Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
The Bombay High Court granted a stay on an order passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against a Registered Valuer, saying that it was “difficult to comprehend the reasoning, logic or rationale” in the order.
A division bench of Justices G S Patel and S G Dige stayed the operation of the IBBI order suspending Vishwanatha Prabhu's registration as a 'registered valuer' observing, “The impugned order seems to us to have completely overlooked the inherent absurdity that it creates. It proceeds on the basis that the mere pendency of a criminal proceeding robs a person such as the Petitioner of his “fit and proper person” status because it supposedly affects his ‘integrity, reputation and character’.
The reason for suspension was Prabhu’s arrest in the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank-Housing and Development Infrastructure Ltd loan fraud case. The court said even charges have not been framed against Prabhu and it is entirely possible that the court in question, when it takes up the charge-sheet, may not in fact frame charges against the him at all.
Case Title: Axis Trustee Services Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
The Bombay High Court set aside Yes Bank’s decision to write of Additional Tier 1 bonds Rs. 8415 Crore value observing that the RBI appointed Administrator could not have taken such a policy decision after the bank already stood reconstituted.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice S. M. Modak, while deciding a batch of petitions filed by the bond holders, noted that the final reconstruction scheme sanctioned by the central government did not contain any provision for writing down AT-1 bonds.
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is the woman’s alone after a severe foetal abnormality is found irrespective of the length of the pregnancy, the Bombay High Court held while allowing a married woman to terminate her 33-week pregnancy against the advice of the Medical Board. The bench noted that the Medical Board had advised against the termination merely because the pregnancy is at an advanced stage. The court, however, said if termination is refused it would not only be condemning the foetus to a less than optimal life, but would also be condemning the mother to a future that would certainly rob her of every positive attribute of parenthood.
Case Title: Yoko Sizzlers v. Yokoso Sizzlers
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
The Bombay High Court restrained a Pune-based restaurant from using the mark 'Yokoso Sizzlers', observing that prima facie it is deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'Yoko Sizzlers'.
Justice Manish Pitale granted interim relief to Yoko Sizzlers in an intellectual property rights suit filed by it against Yokoso Sizzlers.
"Merely because Yoko and Yokoso have different meanings in Japanese language, it would not amount to dissimilarity of the marks in question. Therefore, it is found that a strong prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff, for granting ad-interim relief. This Court is convinced that unless such relief is granted, the plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable loss, thereby indicating that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff," the court said.
Case Title: Pradeep Sharma v. NIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
The Bombay High Court denied bail to former “encounter specialist” Pradeep Sharma, an accused in the Antilia Terror Scare and Manshukh Hiran Murder Case citing his clout and prosecution in a past encounter.
The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and R. N. Laddha also questioned Sharma’s presence in then Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh’s chamber in March 2021. It is the NIA’s case that Sharma and dismissed cop Sachin Waze planned Hiran’s murder within the Mumbai Police Commissionerate.
The HC criticized NIA’s investigation into the terror threat near the Ambani residence. The court said that NIA has not done in-depth investigation. Sharma's name came up for the first time as a co-conspirator during a hearing and that too after being asked by the court, the bench noted. It added that the NIA has not mentioned this anywhere in the charge sheet.
Case Title: Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to three persons accused of committing atrocities against a member of a Scheduled Caste observing that mere creation of sound by accused in his own house cannot mean that it was with sexual intent.
The court also noted that in the first alleged incident of caste abuse, the complainant has alleged that accused persons had abused her in chorus. The name of the caste did not form part of the abuse. “Still if we consider that, that abuse was with an intention to insult the informant; yet, it is to be noted that it is alleged to have been uttered in chorus, which is an unbelievable act. Abuses cannot be given in chorus”, the court added.
Case Title: National Centre for the Performing Arts v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
The Bombay High Court held that failure to adjust interest paid by the National Centre for the Performing Arts (NCPA) was hyper- technical and should not come in the way of implementation of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( SVLDRS).
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that the object of the SVLDR Scheme should not be lost sight of, as the scheme has itself been formulated for the smooth settlement of disputes. The interpretation of the provisions should be to carry forward the object rather than to frustrate the it by giving rise to more litigation.
Case Title: GoDaddy.com LLC & Anr. (Applicants) in Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Aanit Awattam & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court directed GoDaddy, a Domain Name Registrar to inform food delivery service Swiggy each time a domain name containing its trademark ‘SWIGGY’ is registered. The court however, refused to stop GoDaddy from registering future domain names infringing Swiggy’s trademark.
“…it would not be appropriate to continue the ad-interim order granted in terms of prayer clause (g), as it would amount to granting an omnibus and global temporary injunction, operating in futuro. Each instance of infringement would require the Plaintiff to rush to this Court for a direction in this very suit or separate proceedings against specific parties but an omnibus direction as contained in prayer clause (g) could not have been granted”, the court held.
Justice Manish Pitale said that Swiggy will have the liberty to seek relief against each future infringement once it comes to know of the same from GoDaddy.
The court said that the plaintiff has to claim reliefs in context of specific instances of infringement by individuals against whom orders can be passed. Even in a “John doe” action, specific instance of infringement is identified though it may not be known who is responsible for the infringement, the court reiterated.
Case Title: Shivaji S/o Rajaram Take v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
The Bombay High Court upheld the appointment of Ujwala Pawar as Special Public Prosecutor in the trial case related to the murder of Advocate Sambhaji Rajaram in Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar. Pawar had previously represented the complainant in the same case.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay Waghwase observed that just like the accused who has a constitutional right to be represented by an Advocate of his choice, even the informant has some right, may be in a restricted way, to seek the State’s permission for an Advocate of his choice.
Case Title: Shivkaran s/o Ganpati Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
The Bombay High Court held that if the deceased was adversely motivated, and the eyewitnesses inspire confidence, eyewitness evidence would prevail over dying declaration regarding the cause of the death.
Justice SG Mehare of Aurangabad bench, while upholding the acquittal of a man and his family members accused of murdering his wife held –
“where it is proved that the mental condition of the deceased was motivated adversely due to the immediate past events, the circumstances do not support the dying declaration, and the evidence of ocular witnesses inspires the confidence, the ocular evidence would prevail over the statement of the deceased as to the cause of his death.”
The court also said that the past conduct of a person is relevant to determine whether it was a homicide or suicide. The court added that constant disappointment may lead to depression and feelings of revenge in the person.
Case Title: Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Chanda S. Khetawat & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
The Bombay High Court ruled that once reference under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is made and the Facilitation Council is in the process of commencing arbitration under Section 18(3), the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of arbitrator cannot be allowed merely because the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre noted that the applicant/ buyer had issued notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act prior to the date the supplier filed the reference under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act before the Facilitation Council. However, the Court observed that in view of the Apex Court’s decision in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt Ltd (2022), once the statutory mechanism under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act is triggered by a party, it would override the arbitration agreement between them.
Case Title: Freedom City Ventures v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
The Bombay High Court held that correction or removal of objections in any proceedings before any authority does not render the proceedings time barred if the correction does not alter the nature of the proceeding.
“...the absence of any provision to amend, alter, change or modify the name of the applicant in the application for claiming refund of stamp duty should not come in the way of making a bonafide correction as long as there is no express statutory prohibition to do so. In fact, the authority to correct ministerial errors is an inherent power vested in every authority”, the court added.
Case Title: Zenobia Poonawala v. Rustom Ginwalla & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court ruled that if an award debtor has failed to take recourse to the provisions of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it cannot seek to set aside the award on the ground that the expert, whose report was relied upon by the arbitrator, was not examined by the opposite party.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale was dealing with a petition challenging the arbitral award in a dispute between partners, where the award debtor contented that the dissolution notice of the partnership firm was invalid since one of the partners was allegedly of unsound mind at the time of issue of notice.
While holding that the question of unsoundness of mind can never be decided in the arbitral proceedings, and the same can be decided only by a special forum created by a special law, the Court ruled that the said ground was rightly dismissed by the arbitrator.
Case Title: NAREDCO West Foundation v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to re-start deciding proposals pending before it for environmental clearance on a petition by NAREDCO, a self-regulatory real estate body.
The court of ACJ SV Gangapurwala and Sandeep Marne ordered that all project proposals should be considered in accordance with the new Development Control and Promotional Regulations 2034 and unified development regulations for Maharashtra within eight weeks.
“prima facie there appears to be deviation in the exact location at which open recreational spaces is to be provided. Therefore, SEIAA is required to take into consideration the provisions of DCPR 2034 or UDCPR as applicable, in order to determine permissibility of provision of open recreational spaces on podium level in a particular project. The judgment and order dated 13 September 2022 of NGT in case of Anil Tharthare vs. The Secretary, Environment Dept. State of Maharashtra & Ors. cannot be construed to mean a blanket prohibition to consider the proposals of the projects governed by DCPR 2034 or UDCPR”
Case Title: All India Wine Producers Association v. Deputy Secretary and Assistant Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court reduced the four-day ban on liquor sale in Thane, Palghar, Raigad and Nashik districts due to Maharashtra Legislative Council graduate constituencies elections to just the day of voting observing that a longer ban would violate the merchants' right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Imposing a prohibitory ban for long period on merchant establishments and establishments which provide livelihood is contrary to the enshrined principles under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and whenever such thing happens, the Authorities need to be thoughtful”, the court stated.
Justice Milind Jadhav directed that the ban be restricted to only January 30, 2023, i.e., the day of voting.
Case Title: Amit S/o. Suresh Pali v. Rita D/o. Ramavtar Pal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
The Bombay High Court upheld the grant of maintenance to a woman, whose husband's petition for divorce was allowed by the family court on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
Dealing with the argument that prior to the decree of divorce she had refused to live with the husband without a sufficient reason and thus cannot be held to be entitled to maintenance, the court said when she had gone back to her matrimonial home but possibly saw no change in her husband's behaviour and left again, she cannot be said to have refused cohabitation without sufficient reasons under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.
Justice G. A. Sanap of the Nagpur bench, while upholding the family court order, said if the wife had no desire at all to establish the cohabitation with the husband, she would not have at all agreed to join his company.
Case Title: PSP Projects Limited v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corp.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court ruled that even if a party’s right to appoint its nominee in the Arbitral Tribunal as per the arbitration clause, is forfeited because it failed to exercise its right within the statutory period after receiving the notice invoking arbitration, it would not render the Court powerless to appoint an appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, after considering the nature of the disputes.
The High Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Justice Manish Pitale noted that the respondent had forfeited its right to appoint its nominee as per the Arbitration Clause, which contemplated a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. However, this does not mean that the Court is constrained to only appoint a Sole Arbitrator on the insistence of the petitioner, the Court ruled.
Case Title: Gajanan v. Surekha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
Observing that a person's approaching the civil court for divorce itself shows that customary divorce does not exist in his caste, the Bombay High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Justice S. G. Mehare, in the husband’s challenge to the award, held that:
“For claiming any customary right, the parties claiming such right are bound to prove that the customs of their caste or race still exist and the community at large is regularly observing such customs. Since the applicant approached the Civil Court for divorce, it can safely be held that the customary divorce was not in existence in their caste. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim that after the customary divorce, the domestic relationship ceased, and the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs under D.V. Act.”
Case Title: Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh v. Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
The Bombay High Court held that failure to show reason for not including witness names in the witness list under Order XVI Rule 1(1) of CPC alone cannot be a reason to disallow the plaintiff from examining witnesses who are vital for determining the dispute.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding trial court’s order allowing the plaintiff to examine two witnesses held, “Court would not deny them the opportunity by showing technical rules of procedure, drafted for advancing the cause of justice.”
Case Title: Uttam Anna Lande v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
The Bombay High Court upheld the murder conviction of a man observing that he did not try to extinguish the fire showing that he had the intention to murder his wife.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice R. N. Laddha held –
“the act of the accused of pouring the kerosene oil on the person of the deceased, setting her ablaze and not extinguishing the fire would speak entirely against him and demonstrates the intention and knowledge on the part of the Appellant. The deceased was the wife of the Appellant and was alone in the house. The Appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation and acted cruelly. Even if the incident in question was not premeditated and sudden, the manner of retaliation is disproportionate”.
Case Title: Hirabai Dattatray Mankar v. Dodke Associates through its Partner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
The Bombay High Court refused to reopen closed execution proceedings for petitioners who had not pursued their objections for 14 years and challenged the executing court's order two years after it was passed. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said that the prayers of the petitioners for partition and separate possession in the objection applications are of the nature of a fresh suit and cannot be granted in execution proceedings. Such prayers can always be sought by the Petitioners by filing a separate suit.
Case Title: Rahul Giridhar Pathade v. Collector of Nasik, State Excise Department and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs. 10,000/- cost on a petitioner who had objected to opening of a Country Liquor Bar in his neighbourhood, observing that he has no locus standi and his allegations hamper the business owner’s right to carry on trade.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while dismissing the writ petition, said the manner in which the Petition has been drafted is an abuse of the process of law. The petition had challenged Nasik Collector's decision to allow a restaurant and bar-owner's application for shifting of CL III license (License for retail sale of Country Liquor) from existing premises to the new premises.
Case Title: Milind Shantilal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
The Bombay High Court refused to direct the State to consider degree holders in Civil Engineering as eligible for the post of Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department as the recruitment rules only provide for diploma in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification.
Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition filed by 610 Civil Engineering degree holders challenging the eligibility criteria.
Case Title: Shaikh Shaukat S/O Majit @ Majid Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
There is no embargo on quashing a case emanating from a matrimonial dispute even after conviction when an appeal is pending, the Bombay High Court said while quashing a domestic violence case filed by the wife against her husband and in-laws. The accused in the case had been convicted by the trial court in March 2021.
A division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and RM Joshi observed that the high court's powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised in post-conviction matters when an appeal is pending before a judicial forum.
The court noted that the parties had settled the matter and the wife had voluntarily accepted the settlement.
Case Title: M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
The Bombay High Court held that Flipkart’s delivery partner Instakart is not an importer, commission agent or a dealer under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and is not amenable to Local Body Tax (LBT).
A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani while setting aside Pune Municipal Corporation’s notice asking Instakart to register for assessment of LBT held that Instakart is doing import of goods for the purpose of delivery to some other person and hence acts like a courier, postman, or delivery person.
Case Title: M/s. Nanak Construction v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
The Bombay High Court directed the Nagpur Zilla Parishad to consider a construction firm’s bid for various works, observing that it could not be disqualified merely because the State is considering blacklisting it.
A division bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi noted that the order of blacklisting is not in existence and even according to the Zilla Parishad the proposal of blacklisting the petitioner is pending with the state government. In absence of any order of blacklisting petitioner cannot be prevented from participating in the tender process, the court held.
The court directed the Zilla Parishad to consider the petitioner’s bids according to the tender notice. The bids shall not be rejected only because of the communication dated December 30, 2022, the court said.
Case Title: Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
The Bombay High Court recently permitted a member of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena to organise a bodybuilding competition, observing that it is a secular activity and does not aggravate differences between two political parties.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani, while quashing Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation’s (KDMC) communication withdrawing the permission, held that organising a sports event like body building competition cannot be considered as aggravating existing differences.
The court said the concerned officer of KDMC has not explained the nature of the alleged differences (as contemplated in the Clause 1 of the chapter General Conduct) between the two factions of Shivsena. The court further said that the communication has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is a member of the Shivsena party.
Case Title: Kirvan Vendsol Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
Noting that the safety and hygiene of a girl child was paramount, the Bombay High Court dismissed a start-up's petition seeking relaxation of certain tender conditions regarding sanitary napkin vending and disposal machines to 9,940 schools across the State.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Manre was dealing with a petition by Kirvan Vendsol Pvt Ltd alleging that the requirement of a minimum turnover of Rs. 12 crore and minimum three-year experience made them ineligible to participate in the tender process.
“As the project is for safety and hygiene practice for schoolgirls... naturally the predominant factor to be kept in mind by the State is quality," the Bench said.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
The Bombay High Court allowed a man’s application seeking transfer of domestic violence proceedings from the magistrate’s court to the family court, where he has filed a divorce petition. The court said it would not be inconvenient for the wife as both are in the same city.
Justice Amit Borkar held that there is a possibility of conflicting verdicts and transfer will reduce the burden of one court.
Case Title: Rekha @ Vidhila Faldessai v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
In a corporal punishment case, the Bombay High Court held that use of some physical force by school teacher, with no mala fide intention, only to correct the child does not constitute an offence under Section 324 of the IPC or Section 2(m) of the Goa Children's Act, 2005.
Justice Bharat P. Deshpande of the Goa bench, while quashing a schoolteacher’s conviction for hitting two children's hands with a stick, observed that teachers are the backbone of our education system, and it would be difficult to maintain discipline in school if they are constantly under fear of trivial allegations.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Direct State To Provide Aid To Snakebite Victims
Case Title: Vaibhav Padmakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
The Bombay High Court refused to direct the state government to provide financial aid to all snake and scorpion bite victims in the state observing that it is a policy decision, and such direction would encroach on the State Government’s jurisdiction.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the State to grant financial aid to all victims of snake and scorpion bites residing in Maharashtra without discrimination. The court observed that granting financial aid is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the State government under Article 162 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Gaurav s/o Santoshkumar Dhaye v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Bombay High Court directed University of Mumbai to grant admission to a law graduate in the LLM course, observing that there is no such requirement that Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate application must precede the registration process.
“If we take the averment in the Petition at face value that the rejection was on the ground that the receipt of the fresh application could not be the same date as the closing date of registration process, then the refusal is clearly wrong and cannot be sustained. There is no such requirement that the NCL certificate application must precede the registration process nor is it stated anywhere by how many days it should so precede it. Indeed, there can be no such requirement,” a division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale said.
High Court Directs MCGM Commissioner To Decide Fate Of Proposed 'Floating Hotel' In Mumbai
Case Title: Rashmi Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court directed the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to take a final decision regarding grant of permission for construction of a Floating Hotel (Floatel) anchoring off the Raj Bhavan.
The court directed the Commissioner to first decide whether he has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matter or whether recommendations from the three-member committee formed by the High Court are required.
The Commissioner has to decide the NOC application within four weeks from the date of his decision regarding jurisdiction and within eight weeks from the date of submission of all relevant papers and representation by the petitioner company.
Case Title: Anjuman Moinut Tulba & Ors v. Education Officer Primary & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
The Bombay High Court directed the civic body of Malegaon city in Maharashtra to conduct surprise inspections at 27 government aided schools and ascertain if they had operational kitchens and storage rooms to provide midday meals for its students.
A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale was hearing the schools’ petitions seeking directions to the municipal corporation to re-start supplying uncooked grains instead of asking schools to take cooked meals from the centralized community kitchen chains.
“We are not allowing you to outsource the cooking. You don't have the fundamental right to poison children because you are a minority institution…We cannot take the risk,” Justice Patel said refusing to even consider the proposition that the schools may by supplied food grains and outsource the cooking.
After hearing all the parties the bench noted in the order, “In the state there is no absolute prohibition on schools preparing its own midday meal. It is equally not necessary for schools to have the infrastructure to prepare their meals and can receive the midday meals.”
Case Title: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Bombay High Court green flagged the bullet train project and refused to set aside the acquisition of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd's plot at Vikhroli.
"There are no irregularities in the acquisition...Project is of paramount importance...Public interest would prevail over private interest," a division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MM Sathaye observed. The court has also refused to stay the project.
Godrej had challenged the award and compensation of Rs 264 crore by the deputy collector on September 15, 2022 for acquiring 39,252 sqm (9.69 acre) of company land for the Mumbai - Ahmedabad bullet train project. The company claimed the amount was a fraction of the initial offering of Rs. 572 crores.
Case Title: Bombay Lawyers Association v. Jagdeep Dhankar & others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL against the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for their constant public criticism of the judiciary’s ‘collegium system’ and remarks against the basic structure doctrine.
Petitioner - the Bombay Lawyers Association sought to restrain them from discharging their duties claiming that the two have disqualified themselves from holding constitutional posts of Vice President and Minister of the Union Cabinet through their conduct, having expressed lack of faith in the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has called the attack on the judiciary as a frontal attack on the constitution and narrated several instances.
“For reasons to be recorded separately PIL is dismissed,” the division bench of ACJ SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne said.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
The Bombay High Court allowed felling of mangrove trees within the construction zone of the Vadodara Mumbai expressway observing that the proposed expressway will benefit large sections of the population. The court noted that NHAI has acquired permission from all authorities subject to stringent conditions. For example, the ministry of environment has required compensatory afforestation and to develop a separate nursery to raise at least 1 lakh seedlings of forest species.
Case Title: Vaishali Chaburao Katore v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
The Bombay High Court held that a child who was born after the cut-off date but passed away before nomination, would not be counted to disqualify the parent from contesting panchayat elections under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker of the Aurangabad Bench set aside the authorities’ order disqualifying a woman on the ground that she had more than two children after the cut-off date.
Case Title: Chandaba w/o. Gangaram Pauyed v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
The Bombay High Court held that dismissal of a compensation enhancement claim only because the claimant did not lead evidence cannot be termed a decision on merits. Observing thus, the High Court set aside the reference court's dismissal of five claims under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh of the Aurangabad bench observed that the reference Court has to consider factors under Section 23 of the Act to decide the claim.
SPA Which Gives Option To Resell Shares To Vendor, Not A ‘Forward Contract’: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court ruled that a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA), which gives an option to the purchaser to require the seller/vendor to repurchase the shares on the occurrence of a contingency, does not constitute a ‘forward contract’ and thus, the same is enforceable.
The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Rajesh S. Patil, was dealing with an arbitral award, where the Arbitral Tribunal had ruled that the option contained in the SPA was unenforceable since it constituted a contract in derivatives which was not traded on a stock exchange, the same being illegal under Section 18A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA).
Upholding the order of the Single Judge where it had set aside the arbitral award, the Division Bench held that merely because the contract contains a “put option” in respect of securities, the contract cannot be termed as a trade or contract in derivatives. Thus, the Court held that the option contemplated under the SPA was not prohibited in law.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
A woman doesn’t have the right to obstruct the sale of her estranged husband’s home if he is willing to provide her a rented accommodation with similar facilities, the Bombay High Court has held.
The court made the observation while refusing to interfere with an order of the Family Court permitting the husband to sell the flat for clearing an outstanding loan. The Family Court had also directed the wife to move out of the accommodation and choose a suitable two-bedroom rental flat, failing which she would be handed over Rs. 50,000 per month.
The court observed that such an order takes care of the rights of both parties and the wife can’t be heard to say that she would obstruct sale merely because she is habituated to the flat.
Case Title: Yasin Gulab Shikalkar v. Maruti Nagnath Aware and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Observing that a plaintiff cannot be made to suffer if a Court Commissioner did not follow the procedure while making a report, the Bombay High Court has held that the Appellate Court can appoint another Court Commissioner if the one appointed by the Trial Court failed to present a correct picture of the suit land and same will not attract res judicata
Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside District Court’s order refusing to appoint another Court Commissioner in a case where trial court had appointed one to measure the suit land. The trial court had discarded the Court Commissioner’s report as he had not issued notice to adjacent landholders before taking measurements of the suit land. Court added that even the trial court could have appointed another Commissioner.
Case Title: Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Observing bail has to be granted or rejected by a speaking order, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the subordinate Courts to desist from using rubber stamps to decide bail applications.
A bail order produced before a bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki Menezes reflected it had been "rendered on a rubber stamp with blank spaces" in which the Magistrate had filled in the bond amount without mentioning any other details.The court said that there is no apparent authorization for the use of such rubber stamps to enable a Magistrate to grant bail. Grant of bail is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate, who is expected to apply his mind after considering the material on record and is required to be granted or rejected by a speaking order.
The court directed the Registrar to circulate its judgement to all District and Sessions courts.
Case Title: Sudam s/o. Ganpat Kothambire and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
The Bombay High Court held that grant of membership of a cooperative society to any person can be challenged only by filing a dispute before the co-operative court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960.
Justice Arun R. Pednekar of the Aurangabad bench observed that such a challenge does not lie under section 79A as State cannot pass any direction in public interest which contravenes Section 23 of the Act.
Case Title: Hasmukh Solanki v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
The Bombay High Court rejected a plea seeking transfer of advocate Shahid Azmi’s murder trial.
"I do not find any reason to come to the conclusion that the learned Judge was biased against the applicant. There is no material to apprehend for the applicant that he would not get fair trial before the learned Judge. Hence, no case is made out for transferring the proceedings to any other Sessions Judge," said Justice Prakash D. Naik, while dismissing the petition filed by accused Hasmukh Solanki.
Case Title: M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises and Anr. v. Rajesh Jugraj Madhani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
The Bombay High Court held that the application for summary judgment before the Civil Court under Order 13-A of the CPC by a person, whose summary suit is converted to commercial suit, is maintainable.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that such conversion would not cause the petitioner to lose both right to seek summary judgment under Order 13-A and pronouncement of judgment under Order 37 Rule 3.
Case Title: Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar v. Deputy Police Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
The Bombay High Court held that subjective satisfaction for passing an externment order cannot be recorded on the basis of a crime in which the accused was acquitted.
Justice G. A. Sanap sitting at Nagpur quashed an externment order and noted that no reason has been given for ordering externment for two years from the entire Amravati District even though all the registered crimes were within the jurisdiction of Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati City.
The court said that the order of externment suffers from the “virus of excessiveness” as the Divisional Commissioner confirmed it despite recording the fact of the petitioner’s acquittal in four of the crimes.
Case Title: Shashikala Kishan Yewale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Observing that it couldn’t be party to a widow being possibly evicted from her lawfully occupied home of 50 years, the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) to add her name as a tenant/occupant of the 160 square feet premises in Mumbai.
The division bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige noted that on one hand MHADA had a policy to temporarily accommodate even trespassers but in the present case they were insisting on reserving their rights to evict an old woman, lawfully living in the premises.
Case Title: MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Observing that vehicular toll is a tax and not merely contractual debt between the collection company and the civic body, the Bombay High Court dismissed plea by Mumbai based MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (MEPIDL) challenging recovery proceedings for its failure to pay toll collected by it to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
A division bench of Justices G. S. Patel and S.G. Dige further held that once Tehsildar has directed a bank to freeze the accounts of a defaulter against whom recovery certificate is issued, the bank has no power to invite objections from the defaulter.
Match-Maker Cannot Be Charged With Cheating If Groom Allegedly Illtreated Bride: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Dubey v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
A match-maker, who praised the groom before the prospective bride’s family, cannot be charged with cheating merely because the man allegedly treated the woman badly and is now accused of domestic violence, the Bombay High court observed.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed the FIR against the matchmaker, a senior banker, booked along with the husband and his family.
Case Title: Pushkaraj Shekharrao Indurkar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking uniform rules and safety measures for public gathering for the celebrations of Ganpati Utsav.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the petition has not suggested any safety measures.
"In the Writ Petition, not a single instance is narrated, as to how the safety measures are not taken. Further the Petitioner also not suggested any such measures."
Case Title: Ekta Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Merely labelling people as “encroachers” and “deploying bulldozers” is not the solution as the scale of human displacement is beyond imagination, the Bombay High Court said in an interim order, while calling for a more considerate approach to address the issue of alleged encroachments.
The division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale disapproved of the manner used to demolish around 101 “illegal” structures on Western Railways land and said "no further demolitions are to be carried out until the next date in contravention of the Supreme Court order anywhere on Western Railway lands in Greater Mumbai."
Case Title: Anand s/o Shivaji Ghodale v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court held that the defence of alibi can be raised as early as possible at the stage of framing charge as there’s no rule providing that such a defence can only be considered at the stage of defence evidence.
Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench set aside trial court summons issued under section 319 of the CrPC to a man for trial under the POCSO Act observing that the trial court should have considered his defence of alibi.
Case Title: Quess Corp v. Netcore Cloud Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
The Bombay High Court ruled that there is no clash of interest involved where the Arbitrator had acted as a counsel and represented the Advocate representing the opposite party, in another unrelated matter for some other client.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre concluded that the disqualification connection, contemplated under Item 3 of Schedule VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), must be between the Arbitrator and the litigant. Thus, where the Arbitrator had accepted a brief from the respondent’s counsel for some other client, the same will not amount to per se disqualification or ineligibility, the Court ruled.
No Reason For AO To Believe Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Late Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court held that the development agreement permitted construction on the land only as a licensee, which did not have the effect of transmitting possession in favor of the licensee as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that there was neither any tangible material nor any reason for the assessing officer to believe that "any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment,". The action of the assessing officer, therefore, would be without jurisdiction.
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment for the year 2013-14 was sought to be reopened on the ground that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
Absence Of Material: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings
Case Title: Konark Life Spaces v. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings as the issue of "large loans and advances" was not only raised during the scrutiny assessment but also responded to by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that between the date of the order of assessment, which is sought to be reopened, and the date of the formation of the opinion, nothing new happened. There is neither new information on hand nor reference made to any new material on record.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which sought to reopen the assessment. According to the AO, the reasons for reopening were an advance payment made to M/s Nancy Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which remains unexplained. As a result, it was claimed that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truthfully all material facts required for the reassessment.
Case Title: Abbott India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court ruled that the CBDT Circular, dated 01.08.2012, as per which the expenses incurred in granting freebies to medical practitioners is inadmissible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since it is prohibited by law, would not be applicable to the assessment year 2008-09.
The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata noted that Regulation 6.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which bars the medical practitioners from receiving any gift, cash or monetary grant from any pharmaceutical and allied healthcare industry, is incorporated vide an amendment, with effect from 10th December 2009.
Holding that the CBDT Circular was introduced in view of the amended Regulations of 2002, the Court concluded that neither the CBDT Circular nor Regulation 6.8 of the 2002 Regulations, would be applicable to the assessment year 2008-09.
Case Title: Ashwini Sanjay Babar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
Objectionable to morality and human rights that a one-year-old girl has been sold by her mother, the Bombay High Court observed while granting bail to a woman accused of buying another woman’s daughter.
Justice S. M. Modak observed said that the mother sold the child as she was in need of money. “I am at great pains when the word ‘sale’ is used. But the other side of the coin is that her own mother has done this act and the hard reality of the life is that she is in need of money as her husband is behind bar.”
The court noted that now the complainant’s daughter is with her parents. Further, applicant/accused also has two minor children whose welfare has to be considered.
The court said that it is not known when the trial will start and finish and hence there is no need to detain the applicant till the conclusion of the trial.
Case Title: Sajjan s/o Hirchand Gusinge v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court directed the investigation agencies and trial courts to ensure that the identity of a rape victim is not disclosed even in the charge sheet.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase noted that the principal seat at Bombay has directed that photos showing the victim should be filed by the accused under sealed envelope. It extended these directions to the investigation agencies and the court.
The court stated that certain photos produced in the charge sheet show the victim at the spot of the incident and such material should not be openly added in the charge sheet.
Case Title: CLSA India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
The Bombay High Court reiterated that once the revenue department is aware about the amalgamation and had knowledge regarding the non-existence of the amalgamating entity, an assessment order passed against such amalgamating entity would be void and not merely a procedural defect.
The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata remarked that merely because the PAN in the name of the non-existent entity/ amalgamating entity had remained active, it would not justify the reassessment proceedings against such non-existent entity.
Case Title: Mohammed Mussaviruddin Mohammed Naziruddin v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
The Bombay High Court held that the management of a minority institution cannot act as per its whims and allow a retired employee who retained full retiral benefits to return whenever he desires.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh sitting at Nagpur upheld the Education Officer’s order rejecting approval for reinstatement of a retired employee as headmaster of Dr. Zakir Hussain High School, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.
The court further observed that reinstatement on the basis of a private arrangement between the management and the employee would lead to serious uncertainty and dislodge the candidate selected on the vacancy arising out of such voluntary retirement of an employee.
Case Title: BST Textile Mills Pvt Ltd v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
The Bombay High Court ruled that the arbitrator cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error by allowing a consolidated Statement of Claims (SoC), without the consent of the opposite party/ award debtor, in view of the fact that specific claims pertaining to each of the nine contracts were placed distinctly in the Statement of Claims and the award debtor also chose to file a consolidated counter claim pertaining to all the nine contracts.
Dismissing the challenge to the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had no power and jurisdiction to consolidate the disputes, Justice Manish Pitale observed that the nine contracts were executed between the same parties, consisting of identical arbitration clauses, and the nature of the dispute arising from the said contracts was also identical.
Case Title: Dr. Sunil s/o Nilkanth Washimkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The Bombay High Court held that only the acceptance of a research paper for publication in a journal is relevant rather than actual publication to determine the author’s eligibility for any post or qualification.
The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that the worthiness of the paper for publication determines eligibility.
The court set aside MPSC’s decision declaring an Associate Professor ineligible for the post of Professor of Cardiology because his fourth research paper was published after the due date. The court observed that the paper had been accepted for publication before the due date.
Case Title: Arvind S/o Sarjerao Devkar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
The Bombay High Court recently upheld a man’s conviction for kidnapping and raping his minor student observing that instead of grooming students to become responsible citizens, he created a blot on the pious relationship of a student and a teacher.
A division Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase held that being a teacher, the appellant can be presumed to have known her age as he should be aware of the age group of a student studying in the 7th class.
The court opined that appellant’s act of winning over her affection, giving her a mobile phone and inducing her to leave her house shows that he planned everything.
The court held that there is no further requirement of other evidence as the minor girl categorically testified that the appellant committed the offence.
Case Title: Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner State GST Bhavan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the provisions of the GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on trade and commerce to any citizen or subject.
"The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of shortcomings in the scheme of GST enactment. The right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed, contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Art. 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is not allowed to revive the registration, the state would suffer a loss of revenue, and the ultimate goal under the GST regime will stand defeated," the division bench of Justice Mangesh M. Patel and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar observed.
Case Title: Deluxe Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Narayani Associates
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court held that invocation of force majeure by Kalaghoda’s Copper Chimney restaurant would not lead to extension of the period for which it was authorized to use its premises.
Justice GS Kulkarni observed that the termination clause and force majeure clause are independent and invoking force majeure would not change the term of the contract.
Case Title: Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court held that the NALSA’s scheme for release of undertrial prisoners is meant to bring the attention of the stakeholders i.e., courts, to the undertrial persons languishing in jail, but it cannot override the court’s discretion to grant or refuse bail to such prisoners on merits.
Justice S. M. Modak, while denying bail to a murder accused, observed that nothing can take away the discretion of the court in grant of bail.
Case Title: Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
The Bombay High Court allowed a death row convict, who murdered his mother and cut her body parts to eat them, to attend his daughter’s marriage. An Escort Party in civil dress will remain present at the venues.
A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice P. D. Naik observed that his presence is necessary for performing religious ceremonies.
INS Vindhyagiri - MV Nordlake Collision | Liability Can Be Limited At Interim Stage Before Completion Of Trial: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ms. M. V. Nordlake GmbH v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Ruling that the liability of a vessel owner for an accident can be limited at the interim stage before the completion of the trial, the Bombay High Court limited the liability of German company M.V. Nordlake Gmbh for the 2011 MV Nordlake – INS Vindhyagiri collision in Mumbai.
“Once the suit is instituted, it is not imperative that the order to limit liability can only be after a full fledged trial. The Court is not precluded from passing a decree at an intermediate stage without the trial running its full course…there is no embargo either under the provisions of the Code (CPC) or Rules 1980 (Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules) to entertain the application for limitation of the liability”, Justice N. J. Jamadar held while deciding a Notice of Motion for limitation of liability.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court upheld the CIT’s order in deleting the addition made on account of interest expenditure as the assessee, Godrej & Boyce, had sufficient interest-free surplus funds to make the investment.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the AO has neither examined the claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income of the assessee nor recorded any satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the assessee’s claim with reference to the books of account. The disallowance made by applying Rule 8D is not only against the statutory mandate but also contrary to the legal principles laid down.
Case Title: ACC Ltd. v. Dr. Rustum Samboyce And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court held that none of the factors necessary to record finding of negligence have been considered by the trial court in a decision that found ACC Cement negligent for dematerializing (digitizing) an NRI’s shares in someone else’s name.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that prima facie the NRI’s claim was not based on a right created under a statute or under contract.
On March 27, 2017 a civil court held ACC negligent for dematerializing the NRI - Dr. Rustom Sam Boyce’s - shares in someone else’s name despite being put to notice that the shares were stolen.
It allowed the NRI to retrieve 3912 and 6250 shares of ACC along with accrual rights, bonus, dividends, from November 1, 2005. ACC approached the HC against this decree.
Bombay High Court Quashes ED Investigation Against Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal, Wife Anita
Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. Directoratate Of Enforcement And Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s ECIR against former Jet Airways Chairman Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita.
The division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan passed the order on a petition filed by the duo seeking quashing of the ECIR registered against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Case Title: M/s. Perfect Auto v. Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
The Bombay High Court held that a court can fix interim standard rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 at any stage of a suit for recovery of rent but not in any other kind of suit.
Justice Anil S. Kilor of the Nagpur bench set aside trial court’s order fixing interim rent of a shop premises in a suit for fixation of standard rent.
Case Title: Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra through its proprietor Vishal Nandkishor Gangawane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court held that the performers license of Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra, Nashik couldn't have been cancelled on the ground of crime registered against the proprietor as the alleged crime was not committed on the Kala Kendra's premises.
Justice RG Avachat added that since the proprietor has been acquitted of the crime, the ground for cancellation does not exist anymore.
Case Title: Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CBIC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court advised the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) to construct GST tribunals to reduce needless litigation in the form of filing writ petitions.
"It would be advisable, to avoid further complications, that the Board issues instructions to incorporate Clause 4.2 of the Circular dated 18 March 2020 in each order which is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 109 of the Act. This would guide the aggrieved parties as to the future course of conduct and reduce needless litigation in the form of filing writ petitions such as the present ones," the division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja said.
Case Title: Kalpesh Shantikumar Mehta & Ors. vs. NKGSB Co-op. Bank Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
The Bombay High Court ruled that reference of more than two arbitrations to the same arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), involving the same Co-operative Bank, would not fall foul of clause 22 of Schedule V of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Noting that in the statutory arbitration contemplated under the MSCS Act, the arbitrator is appointed by the Central Registrar/Commissioner of Co-operative Societies under Section 84 (4) of the MSCS Act, the bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that the embargo created under clause 22 comes into picture only when the Arbitrator is appointed by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.
Therefore, the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed on more than two occasions in the past three years, with respect to disputes involving the same Co-operative Bank, would fall outside the purview of the embargo created under clause 22, the Court said.
Case Title: Sandeep Kudale v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
The Bombay High Court while quashing two FIRs against a Congress party-worker has observed that expressing an opinion, dissent and condemning what was stated by a Minister can “by no stretch of imagination be said to be an act intended to cause disorder or to incite people to violence.” The court said that this was sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 153A of the IPC.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan further observed that the facts of the case did not warrant slapping of Section 153A IPC on such "flimsy grounds”. The bench said that at the highest, one of the words used by the petitioner “can be said to be distasteful” but certainly not warranting registration of the FIR, much less the petitioner’s arrest.
Case Title: Trustees Association of India v. Competition Commission of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court disposed of four petitions challenging Competition Commission of India’s investigation into alleged cartelization and price fixing by debenture trustee units of Axis, SBICap and IDBI.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale kept all contentions including the issue of jurisdiction open and stated that the CCI will have to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the investigation or not.
The court clarified that if the CCI decides it has jurisdiction, it doesn’t have to defer consideration on merits at a later date.
Case Title: Deepak Marda v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
The Bombay High Court held that the fact that a different director of the same company disclosed the income received in a different way cannot be used as justification to reopen the assessment.
The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion, conjectures, and assumptions, as well as blindly relying on information and borrowed satisfaction.
"It is an imperative duty of the authorities to be updated with the law and to apply it to the case at hand before taking decisions and passing orders. Feigning ignorance of the law by authorities only increases the burden on the courts," the court said.
Case Title: Mayur Vaijanath Tawde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction of two individuals who allegedly mistreated their stepmother from their deceased father's house observing that the elderly stepmother needs comfort and peace in the evening of her life.
Justice RG Avachat upheld the order of the tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises.
Case Title: Manohar s/o. Dnyaneshwar Pote v. Collector, Jalna and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The Bombay High Court held that there is no statutory violation by a Sarpanch conducting Gram Sabha meetings consecutively as the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 does not provide for holding Gram Sabha meetings in a particular way.
Justice Arun Pednekar of the Aurangabad bench set aside the disqualification of the Sarpanch of a village in Jalna District who held four Gram Sabha meetings in a short period.
Case Title: Jane Cox v. Bar Council of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
The Bombay High Court set aside a 17-year-old order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and paved the way for Advocate Jane Cox, a British citizen, to continue her legal practice in India.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, set aside the 2005 order with BCI's consent but kept the question regarding a foreigner's right to practice expressly open.
"Both sides agree that reasons are not necessary for the following order. The Bar Council of India though Mr Shekhar Jagtap states that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order of the BCI dated February 20, 2005 may be set aside, and the issue of the petitioner's right to practice be concluded in the petitioner's favour. We make rules absolute regarding prayer A and B.
The question of law raised in the petition is expressly kept open with regard to persons other than the present petitioner," the court said.
Case Title: Shoyab Mehtab Ali v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
The Bombay High Court held that the period of incarceration that prisoner has undergone has to be calculated including the period of set off and remission to determine eligibility for parole or furlough under the Maharashtra Prison (Parole and Furlough) Rules.
A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes sitting at Nagpur while setting aside rejection of a prisoner’s parole application held –
“Therefore, while applying Rule 4[2] of the Rules, one has to calculate the period by including the period of set off and remission earned by the petitioner. Therefore, as admittedly the petitioner has undergone the entire period awarded for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Code, he is eligible for furlough leave.”
Case Title: Lok Developers vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax
Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court set aside the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities against the assessee for non-compliance of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the notice was served on the secondary email id registered with the PAN database instead of the registered primary email id or the updated email id mentioned by the assessee in its last Return of Income.
While holding that the Assessing Officer had clearly erred in issuing a notice on the secondary email address when there was a primary email address given by the assessee, the bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata held that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of a valid service of notice on the assessee.
The petitioner/ assessee, Lok Developers, challenged the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court Orders Child’s custody to Given to the Father At the Police Station
Case Title: Rakesh Tulsidas Rathod V/s. Jayraj Vishram Vapikar & Ors
Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
Amid the cries of a 10-year-old child refusing to be taken away by his biological father, the Bombay High Court asked the maternal grandfather to handover the child’s custody to the father at the police station later in the day.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik denied to look at video footage of the child screaming for help and then physically fighting off the father while the latter attempted to forcibly take him away from the High Court premises. The court was seized with a contempt petition filed by the father against the maternal grandfather and uncle to handover the child's custody.
Case Title – Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector and Ors.
Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
The Bombay High Court recently held that the Collector can pass a compensation award in favour of persons having share in the property under acquisition to the extent of their share even if other interested persons claiming share do not appear before the Collector.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye upheld the compensation award for acquisition of certain land for the Bullet Train Project under the Fair Compensation Act. The award was challenged on the ground that it was passed without the petitioners’ consent.
Case Title – Shaikh Sana Farheen Shahmir and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
A case will not have religious angle merely because the boy and girl in a relationship are from different religions, the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase granted anticipatory bail to a Muslim woman and her family accused of forcing a Hindu man to convert to Islam.
Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Assault Case Under POCSO After Child’s Mother Consents
Case Title: Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 19-year-old male student under IPC and POCSO for the abduction and sexual assault of a minor teenager with the complainant’s - mother’s consent.
Justices Nitin Sambre and SG Dige observed that the couple was on “friendly terms” and lived together without informing the girl’s parents. And this miscommunication was the reason behind the FIR.
Case Title: Rita Kirit Joshi v. New India Assurance
Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
In a significant order the Bombay High Court has held that a ‘newborn’ baby would include a ‘pre-mature baby’ and the insurer would be liable to pay for all expenses related to the infant’s care.
It rejected the insurance policy clause which stated that “expenses relating to illness or injury to the new-born” did not include “expenses relating to postnatal care, pre-term or premature care.” “It is distinction without a difference,” the bench said.
Who Is The Proper Authority To Decide IGST Refund? Bombay High Court Directs The Dept. To Decide
Case Title: M/s. Bora Mobility v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
The Bombay High Court directed the department to decide who has the proper authority to decide on an IGST refund.
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja noted that the customs authorities claimed that the GST authority is the proper officer for processing refund claims, whereas the GST authorities claim that it is the customs officer.
The court directed both authorities to discuss amongst themselves and file a joint note, failing which the officers would be directed to remain present in court.
NI Act| Company's Authorized Signatory Not "Drawer" Of Cheque : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Lyka Labs Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
The Bombay High Court held that authorised signatory of a company who signs a cheque on its behalf is not the "drawer" of the cheque and hence such signatory is not liable to pay interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a case for dishonour of cheque.
"The signatory of the cheque, authorized by the "Company", is not the drawer in terms of section 143A of the NI Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under section 143A", the court held.
Justice Amit Borkar further held that persons who are not the drawers of the cheque are not required to make the deposit in terms of Section 148 of the Act while filing appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Case Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chiripal Industries Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
The Bombay High Court held that there is no prima facie deceptive similarity between Fevicol manufacturer Pidilite Industries’ logo having two elephants against backdrop of a sunset and Chiripal Industries’ logo having containing word Tikawoo with the device of a rhino against the backdrop of sun.
The court however, granted interim injunction in favour of Pidilite restraining Chiripal from using marks similar or identical to plaintiff’s “HEATX”, “LW+”, and “LW” marks.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Against Jetair
Case Title: Jetair Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair Pvt Ltd, a group entity of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, and has set aside the notice issued by the revenue department under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 against Jetair, seeking to reopen assessment for the relevant assessment year.
The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata rejected the contentions raised by revenue department that payment of commission to Jetair, who is a sales agent of Jet Airways, at a rate lower than what is charged by it from other unrelated airlines on the domestic and international ticket sales, was a colourable device, with an aim to evade tax.
Case Title: Mahendranath Vidyaniwas Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
Observing that it was a question of a public tender process being subverted by ex-facie dubious documents, the Bombay High Court rejected a contractor’s petition against the Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale refused to set aside ONGC’s order banning the petitioner - Carlton Industries Engineers from participating in any of the bids for six months.
The petitioner was banned after ONGC’s enquiry officer concluded that Carlton had submitted a revised Undated Completion Certificate in collusion with the Project Coordinator of work at ONGC with a sole intent to take advantage and get themselves qualified for tender.
“…The undated certificate seems to shower compliments on the Petitioner, apart from wishing him great success and all good luck. To say that we have never seen ONGC or its officers acting in so magnanimous fashion with any contractor might be a great understatement,” the bench observed.
The court also said there were disputed questions of fact which couldn’t be adjudicated in the petition under Article 226 of the constitution.
Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Holding that Air India employees were granted accommodation on leave and license and not as a matter of right, the Bombay High Court held that eviction of employees due to privatisation cannot be termed an Industrial dispute.
A division bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by employee unions of Air India challenging the Central Government’s refusal to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal.
Case Title: Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
The Bombay High Court ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) against the order of the Arbitral Tribunal directing the party to disclose the contents of sealed envelope submitted by it at the time of tendering of evidence, since the same did not relate to the subject matter of arbitration nor was it a subject matter of the claim/counter claim raised by the parties and thus, it fell outside the purview of Section 17.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that the power exercised by the Arbitrator in allowing the application filed by the claimant and in directing disclosure of the information submitted by the opposite party in the sealed envelope, is an order passed under Section 19 and not under Section 17 since power under Section 17 can only be exercised for protection of the subject matter of the dispute.
Case Title: Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI and ED investigation into the alleged "disproportionate" wealth of Maharashtra's ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray, his wife and two sons.
"We hold this petition is an abuse of the process of the law," a division bench of Justices Dhiraj Thakur and Valmiki Menezes said imposing Rs. 25,000 cost on Dadar residents Gouri Bhide (38) and Abhay Bhide (78).
The bench found the petition to be "bereft of any evidence", much less evidence which would give a basis to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for the CBI or any other agency.
Case Title: Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment order on the grounds that the only reason for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act appeared to be that the Assessing Officer had come to a different opinion on the question of valuation than the one adopted by the petitioner.
The division bench of Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes has observed that the order rejecting the objections has not even once mentioned the valuation report submitted by the petitioner during the earlier assessment proceedings after scrutiny, nor does it refer to the method used by the petitioner for valuation.
Case Title: Mantras Green Resources Ltd. & Ors. v. Canara Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of the applications filed by banks/ financial institutions for recovery of debt, however, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit filed by the borrower.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that even though a remedy is available to the borrower to file a counterclaim in the application filed by the bank/financial institution before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the same does not bar the borrower to file a civil suit raising an independent claim against the bank/financial institution.
While dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) by the borrower, the Court held that since the borrower has an option to file a civil suit, Section 8 of the A&C Act will immediately come into picture, in view of the arbitration clause existing between the parties. The Court thus referred the parties to arbitration.
Section 151 CPC | Bombay High Court Allows Correction In Sale Deed After 38 Yrs
Case Title: Dagadu Shivaji Lodhe And Anr v. Bhaurao Fakira Dongre And Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
Observing that the Court’s powers under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to rectify errors and do substantial justice, the Bombay High Court allowed correction in a sale deed after thirty-eight years.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to meet the ends of justice, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh at the Aurangabad bench observed.
Case Title: Murlidhar Waman Bombale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
A single deathly blow doesn’t warrant commuting a murder conviction to culpable homicide, the Bombay High court observed while upholding the life sentence of a man who struck his neighbour with a sickle in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase refused to commute 25-year-old Murlidhar Bombale’s conviction for 302 (murder) to 304(II) (culpable homicide) of the IPC. The court however acquitted Bombale’s brother and father of the murder charge and merely held them guilty under sections 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 325 (grievous hurt) of the IPC.
Case Title: Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
The Bombay High Court held that once a land acquisition compensation award is passed under the National Highways Act, 1956 by the competent authority, the authority cannot make corrections in it.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye held –
“The National Highways Act, 1956 being the self-contained code, the provisions of Section 33 of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 granting the limited powers in respect of the award declared under the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 cannot be extended to the award declared under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.”
"It cannot be held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, would have any power or authority to either correct the award for any reason whatsoever or for that matter, to pass an additional award or to review the same," it added.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Surendra G. Ghodake
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
The Bombay High Court held that a man whose conviction for cruelty to wife was set aside due to compromise and not merits would not be entitled to 100 percent back wages during the period of his dismissal from service.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne set aside a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order granting 100 percent back wages to a constable who was convicted of cruelty but later acquitted due to compromise.
Case Title: Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
The Bombay High Court recently held that the Chief Minister of Maharashtra does not have independent powers to interfere with the subject assigned to another Minister.
Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes of the Nagpur bench quashed CM’s order staying the recruitment process of the Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank observing that the subject fell under the authority of the Minister of Co-operation.
The court added that there must be express provision authorizing the CM to act on a matter assigned to a particular Ministry. Further, under the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business and Instructions the Minister is not subordinate to the Chief Minister regarding independent functioning of a department assigned to him, said the court.
Central Government Has Notified Rules: Bombay High Court Disposes Off Resident Welfare Associations Plea Against Society’s Dog Lovers
Case Title: Seawoods Estates Ltd. v. Mona Mohan And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
Observing that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 formulated by the Central Government notified on March 10, 2023 answers the question of feeding strays or community dogs inside a housing society “optimally”, the Bombay High Court disposed of a petition involving warring management of Seawoods Estate Limited and dog lovers from the society.
According to the Rules, in case a dispute arises between the apartment owners and care givers, a 7-member Animal Welfare Committee would be formed and its decision would be final.
“If this is the architecture of the Rules, then clearly there is no issue for us to decide. There is now legislative framework that occupies the field,” the bench said.
Case Title: Terezinha Martins David v. Miguel Guarda Rosario Martins and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
The Goa bench of Bombay High Court held that daughter’s right to family property does not extinguish merely because she was provided dowry at her marriage.
Justice MS Sonak quashed a Transfer Deed made by brothers transferring family property without the consent of the appellant sister.
Case Title: National Textile Corporation Ltd vs. Elixir Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Facilitation Council by invoking statutory arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), while holding that the Council could not have exercised jurisdiction to conduct arbitration in a dispute arising under a works contract.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale remarked that a works contract is not amenable to the provisions of the MSMED Act, and therefore the MSMED Act could not have been invoked by the claimant/ award holder.
The Court concluded that the lack of jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council to conduct the arbitral proceedings rendered the arbitral award patently illegal.
Case Title: Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
The Bombay High Court quashed an order passed against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) president Raj Thackeray refusing to discharge him from a 2008 “unlawful assembly case” regarding agitations seeking jobs for Maharashtrians in the Railway.
Justice Amit Borkar remanded the matter back to the Sessions court of Islampur directing it to decide the revision application afresh as the order lacked proper reasoning.
Case Title: Mahadev Gaur Bishwas v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
Observing that a three-year-old child cannot be expected to give an exact description of her private parts or identify the accused based on a photograph, the Bombay High Court upheld the 10 -year sentence of the child’s neighbour under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
Justice Bharati Dangre upheld the neighbour’s conviction by a Special Court for offences punishable u/s. 376(2) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for raping the victim girl by penetrating his finger into the vagina.
“A little girl of 3 ½ years who is not even introduced to her own organs, cannot be expected to give exact description of her private parts, but in her statement recorded u/s.164, she has categorically stated that XXXX’s father had touched her at the toilet place by his nails,” the judge observed
Case Title: Suresh s/o Devidas Malche v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
The Bombay High Court held that DNA test report cannot be solely relied on for conviction when the ocular evidence does not support it.
“When the ocular evidence was not supporting, conviction ought not to have been based only on the DNA test report i.e. medical report”, the court held.
A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad set aside a man's rape conviction observing that the victim changed her testimony and the DNA evidence was not reliable.
Case Title: Anil G. Karkhanis v. Kirloskar Press and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
The Bombay High Court granted an 83-year-old lawyer the license to translate and publish the autobiography of devout Gandhian - Madeleine Slade also known as Mira Behn in Marathi.
Lawyer Anilkumar Karkhanis said he intended to publish the book titled "The Spirit's Pilgrimage" in Marathi, not for any commercial gain but in public interest. He has approached the court under section 32 of the Copyright Act 1957 for permission as the original publishers are untraceable.
The court took the petitioner’s undertaking on record that he would deposit the Royalty in the High Court, if and when any person raises a claim in that regard.
Case Title: Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
The Bombay High Court ruled that when one of the parties to the dispute has an overwhelming and unilateral power to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, the same completely vitiates such an appointment as the same is hit by Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
While dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Court held that it was not necessary for the petitioner to raise an objection regarding the unilateral appointment before the arbitrator, to be able to raise the same in a Section 34 petition to challenge the arbitral award.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Subhash Pawar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
The Bombay High Court upheld a man's acquittal from charge of culpable homicide for causing death of a cyclist and bullock while driving, on the ground that the direction of path of the bullock cart and the spot it was lying after the collision could not be ascertained from the evidence.
Justice SM Modak added the investigating officer should have prepared a map of the scene and the trial court should have questioned the witnesses to clarify and record correct direction of the vehicles.
Sanatan Sanstha Not Declared Banned Or Terrorist Organization Under UAPA: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
Sanatan Sanstha has not been declared a banned or terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004, the Bombay High Court recently observed.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata granted bail to two members of the Sanstha in the Sunburn Terror Attack Conspiracy 2017 and Nallasopara Arms Haul Case 2018.
“The most intriguing part of this case is that ‘Sanatan Sanstha’ is an organization which has not been declared to be a banned or terrorist organization or a frontal organization of any banned terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004”, the court said.
The court said that the prosecution’s evidence was “disappointing” and there was no prima facie evidence against the accused.
Case Title: Ram Omprakash Patil v. Secretary, Government of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
The Bombay High Court held that once the winning bidder of a tender accepts the refund of deposit paid to confirm the contract without any reservation, he cannot challenge the cancellation of the tender as the contract would stand rescinded.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne upheld the cancellation of Central Government’s tender for sale of an agricult
Case Title: Rama Arvind Katarnaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
Observing that former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s statements were an analysis of history and the lessons to be learnt from it, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking criminal action against him for his statements about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Savitribai Phule and Jyotirao Phule.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Abhay S Waghwase held that the statements cannot be seen as disrespecting any person held in high esteem by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Case Title: John Peter Fernandes v. Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the doctrine of severability can apply to arbitral awards, so long as the objectionable part can be segregated.
The Court added that if the award is partially set aside by applying the doctrine of severability, the same would not amount to modification or correction of the errors of the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale further held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot decided an issue in violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties, by applying the principles of equity. This is so especially when the parties have not expressly authorized the arbitrator to decide the matter ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur under Section 28(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the bench added.
Case Title: Avenue Supermarkets Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the rejection of the Petitioner’s declaration for SVLDRS-1.
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the petitioner/assessee was a victim of the lacuna in the software governing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) (SVLDR) Scheme, 2019 where the Petitioner could not have selected the option of Navi Mumbai Commissionerate which was earlier Commissionerate of the petitioner.
The court observed that the scheme of 2019 which is brought into force by the Finance Act of 2019 is for the settlement of legacy disputes and also gives the opportunity to the taxpayer to come forward to make payments and to resolve their pending disputes. It was also to help the Government to clear the amount locked in litigation to augment the revenue.
The court ruled that the Petitioner is entitled to get his application or declaration SVLDRS-1 to be examined on merits as to whether the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
Case Title: Mehrunnisa Kadir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
Observing that a sanction isn’t required to prosecute police officers in cases of death due to custodial torture, the Bombay High Court directed a Special CBI Court to charge three police officers with murder of a 23-year-old man in 2009.
Justice PD Naik set aside an order of the Sessions Court simply upholding charges under section 323 (hurt) of the IPC, based on the CBI’s investigation, and instead directed the court to frame charges for offences under Sections 120-B (conspiracy) r/w 302 (murder), 330 & 342 (wrongful confinement) IPC.
Case Title: Sunil and Ors. v. Jayashri
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
When no domestic violence is found in a domestic violence case, maintenance cannot be awarded to wife on the ground that husband refused and neglected to maintain her, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice SG Mehare of Aurangabad bench observed that the concept of “refusal and neglect to maintain wife” given in section 125 CrPC does not exist in the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The court held that granting maintenance to wife in a domestic violence case based on concept of refusal and neglect to maintain is beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Case Title: Paromita Purthan v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
"To hate the stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach, from persons of civil society," the Bombay High Court observed urging a housing society to take a compassionate view over feeding of stray dogs.
"If the Society continues to take any coercive measures as noted by us above and by physical force, persons like the petitioner are prevented from taking care of these animals, and/or from pursuing such activity which is wholly permissible in law, such actions on their part would not only be contrary to the provisions of law, but also, amount to commission of an offence," the court noted in an order on Monday.
Following the order, RNA Royale Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited's counsel informed the court that there were no bouncers in the Society anymore to prevent dog-feeding.
Subsequently the court directed the society and petitioner to come together and harmoniously decide a feeding spot for the stray dogs. The bench further allowed the intervention of an NGO to identify such spots.
The court sought compassion and cooperation from the housing society.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
The Bombay High Court ruled that the wife’s reputation is lowered by the mere fact that husband has made allegations against her in a newspaper, whether or not the news report is actually defamatory.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye was upheld family court’s decree granting divorce to the wife and held that the husband’s overall behaviour constitutes mental cruelty.
The court further noted that the appellant filed criminal complaints not only against his mother-in-law before the Anti-Corruption Bureau but also against the investigating officer, the prosecutor who is a relative of the wife, as well as his wife’s current lawyer.
The court opined that such a person is difficult to deal with and would certainly cause mental harassment.
Antilia Bomb Scare-Mansukh Hiren Murder Case: Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Probe Against Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh
Case Title: Parshuram S/o Rambhilakh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking investigation into former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh in connection with the Antilia Bomb Scare-Mansukh Hiran Murder Case.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata held that the petition is based on hearsay evidence and does not disclose any offence at the hands of Singh.
Case Title: Mamata Banerjee v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal application filed by West Bengal's CM Mamta Banerjee seeking to quash the complaint filed against her for allegedly disrespecting the National Anthem in 2022.
Banerjee had assailed an order of the Sessions Court which though set aside the order of issuance of process against her for offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, but remitted the proceedings back to magistrate to comply with procedure under 200 (verification) and 202 (police inquiry) of CrPC.
The court noted that Banerjee had misread the order of the sessions court with regard to non-fulfilment of Section 3.
"There is no finding recorded by sessions court that offence under Section 3 is not made out. The sessions court was considering necessity hold inquiry under 202 and in that context it has held that the magistrate was not justified in issuing process," Court said.
Dispute Over Ownership Of Facebook Group Not A Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Himalayan Club v. Kanwar B. Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
The Bombay High Court held that the dispute over ownership of a Facebook Group is not a trademark dispute and can be decided by the Civil Court.
Justice Nitin W Sambre set aside Civil Court’s decision that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute of ownership of the Facebook Group called The Himalayan Club.
The court said that the Facebook Group is a website and a social media platform for members to exchange ideas etc. and hence it is not a trademark or a copyright.
Bombay High Court Quashes Journalist's Criminal Intimidation Complaint Against Actor Salman Khan
Case Title: Salman Khan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
The Bombay High Court quashed the private complaint against actor Salman Khan filed by a journalist in 2019 alleging criminal intimidation.
A metropolitan court in Andheri had earlier issued summons to the actor, which was challenged in the High Court.
Anushka Sharma Sales Tax Case: Bombay High Court Asks Actor To Approach Appellate Authority Under Maharashtra VAT Act
Case Title: Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
The Bombay High Court disposed of four tax petitions filed by actor Anushka Sharma and asked her to approach the appellate authority under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja said that there were disputed questions of fact which would require an inquiry. Therefore Sharma should approach the Joint Commissioner Appeals, of the Sales Tax Department.
Mumbai Gets Heavy Monsoon, Better Tech For Rehabilitation Of 100 Yrs Old Storm Water Drains Can't Be Avoided Merely Due To Extra Cost: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
The Bombay High Court held that use of best possible technology to rehabilitate 100 years old storm water arch drains in Mumbai is of paramount importance as Mumbai receives heavy monsoon every year.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne added that merely because the better technology involves extra cost compared to other available technology, use of the better technology cannot be avoided.
Case Title: Nalini @ Madhavi Madhukar Murkute v. Deepak Manohar Gaikwad and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
The Bombay High Court held that when a plaintiff withdraws a suit partially, conversion of a defendant to a plaintiff is allowed, provided the defendant's interest against other defendants regarding the subject matter property is identical with the plaintiff's.
Justice MM Sathaye set aside a Civil Court order allowing a defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff in a partition suit despite there being a conflict of interest with the original plaintiff.
Case Title: Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
The Bombay High Court rejected a challenge to alignment of Mumbai's Metro Line 4 observing that the petitioners attempted to stall and delay the project of public importance under the garb of enforcing their private rights.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne stated that the petitioners raised baseless arguments and made MMRDA justify each action regarding implementation of metro project unnecessarily.
Custom Authorities Don’t Have Any Power To Seal Immovable Property: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
The Bombay High Court held that the Custom authorities do not have any power to seal the premises of a person allegedly involved in smuggling goods.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata in a writ petition held, “…we find that there is no power available with the custom authorities to seal premises of any person, which are nothing but a form of immovable property.”
Case Title: Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble @ Sakshi Vithal Khatri and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
The Bombay High Court held that a transgender woman who has undergone sex re-assignment surgery can be an “aggrieved person” under the Domestic Violence Act and has the right to seek interim maintenance in a domestic violence case.
Justice Amit Borkar dismissed a man’s petition challenging maintenance awarded to his wife, a trans-woman, observing that the term 'aggrieved person' under section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has to be given a broad interpretation as the purpose of the Act is to protect women from domestic violence.
