Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 To April 8, 2023

The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 176

A v. B 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 177

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

Anil Jaisinghani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 179

Sameer Amrut Kondekar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

PhonePe Private Limited v. Resilient Innovations Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

Gunratan Sadavarte v. Registrar/Secretary Disciplinary Committee & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

Avijit Michael v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

Dr. Shivaraj Pataria v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

Reports/Judgments

Motor Accident | Remarriage Not A Taboo Against Compensation To Widow Of Deceased: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 176

The Bombay High Court held that remarriage will not disentitle the widow of a deceased in a motor accident from receiving compensation.

Justice SG Dige observed that remarriage cannot be a taboo against motor accident compensation

The court noted that at the time of accident, the wife of the deceased was only 19 years old. She remarried during the pendency of the claim petition.

The court said that a widow cannot be expected to remain a widow for life or till getting compensation.

Bombay High Court Criticizes Sessions Judge For Giving "Single-Line" Reasoning While Setting Aside Magistrate's Detailed Order

Case Title: A v. B

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 177

The Bombay High Court criticized a sessions judge for giving a single line reasoning to set aside a well-reasoned order passed by the judicial magistrate.

Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench said that while writing a judgement in appeal, the court has to appreciate the case as if it is a trial before it.

The court set aside the finding of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to his wife under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court noted that the Judge did not assign any reason for disagreeing with the reasoned order passed by the JMFC except a single line reason that there is sufficient evidence to established domestic violence.

Father Cannot Avoid Paying Maintenance To Child By Seeking Frivolous Paternity Test: Bombay High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

The Bombay High Court held that a child can be ordered to undergo paternity test only in exceptional cases and father’s attempt to avoid paying maintenance to son by seeking DNA testing should be thwarted at the very inception.

Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench dismissed a man’s plea seeking paternity test of a child born during cohabitation with his wife. The man did not allege infidelity on his wife’s part.

[Amruta Fadnavis Complaint] Bombay High Court Dismisses Bookie Anil Jaisinghani's Plea Alleging Illegal Arrest

Case Title: Anil Jaisinghani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 179

The Bombay High Court dismissed bookie Anil Jaisinghani's plea alleging illegal arrest in the case filed by deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis's wife - Amruta Fadnavis.

The bench of Justice AS Gadkari and PK Naik held that the Petitioners were produced before the court within the stipulated period and there is no breach of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and/or Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. is committed by the State.

[False Promise To Marry] One Person Can't Be Prosecuted For Rape Merely Because Mutual Relationship Turned Sour: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sameer Amrut Kondekar v. State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

When two people invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other alleged rape after things went south and the relationship didn’t culminate into a marriage, the Bombay High Court observed while discharging a man accused of raping his girlfriend of eight years.

Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the trial court’s order refusing to discharge the man under sections 376, 323 of the IPC on a complaint filed by his 27-year-old girlfriend in 2016.

Limited Remedy Available Under S. 34 Of A&C Act Against Award Of Compensation Under NHA, Is Not A Ground To Invoke HC’s Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

The Bombay High Court ruled that though the scope for challenging the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator to the landowners under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA) is limited to the parameters provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act), the same cannot be a ground to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Avinash G. Gharote dismissed the contention of the landowners that since the Court under Section 34 of A&C Act has no power to modify the award or substitute a new award for further enhancement of the compensation than what was awarded by the Arbitrator, the petitioners were rendered remediless.

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To PhonePe In Trademark Infringement Suit, Says Contradictory Stands Taken On Meaning Of ‘Pe’

Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. Resilient Innovations Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

The Bombay High Court refused to grant interim relief to PhonePe for alleged infringement of its trademark “PhonePe” by Resilient Innovations’ trademark “postpe”.

Justice Manish Pitale cited contradictions between PhonePe’s stand taken before the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court regarding the meaning of the term “Pe”.

PhonePe Private Ltd. in the present case claimed that the suffix “Pe” after the word “Phone” in its trademark has the colloquial Hindi meaning “On”. Therefore, PhonePe means services on the phone, it said.

However, in a 2019 suit pending before the Delhi High Court for alleged infringement of “PhonePe” through defendant’s mark “BharatPe”, the plaintiff has claimed that the term “Pe” means the action of payment and it was a misspelling of the word “Pay”.

“Such contrary pleas do indicate that the plaintiff has dis-entitled itself for grant of discretionary reliefs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC),” the court said.

Bombay High Court Refuses Immediate Relief To Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte Over License Suspension, Asks Him To File Appeal Before BCI

Case Title: Gunratan Sadavarte v. Registrar/Secretary Disciplinary Committee & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

Observing that an alternate statutory remedy was available, the Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to immediately intervene in the plea filed by controversial Advocate - Gunratan Sadavarte - against the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s order suspending his license to practice for two years.

However, the bench led by Justice Gautam Patel said it was “not completely shutting its doors” to Sadavarte and would keep his plea pending in case he was denied relief in appeal.

'Democratic Right Of Citizens To Protest & Persuade': Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Green Activist Who Sent Messages To Metro Director To Save Aarey Forest

Case Title: Avijit Michael v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

In a significant judgement on the use of technology to protest, the Bombay High Court rapped the Mumbai police for booking a green activist alleging harassment over messages sent to IAS officer Ashwini Bhide in 2018 against felling of trees at Aarey Colony for the Metro III car shed.

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and MM Sathaye quashed the FIR registered at the Bandra-Kurla Complex police station against Avijit Michael, a resident of Bangalore and observed that there was nothing “offensive” in the messages and the accused was only trying to assert his democratic rights.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Hospital Owners, Doctor In Fake COVID Vaccination Camp Case

Case Title: Dr. Shivaraj Pataria v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

The Bombay Court granted bail to hospital owners and a doctor accused of giving fake COVID vaccines in various vaccination camps across Mumbai observing that the alleged fake vaccines did not cause death or any adverse effect to any patient. Justice Bharati Dangre opined that the material shows Mahendra Singh of the Malad Medical Assocation as kingpin of the entire scam.

Other Developments

Maharashtra Bar Council Initiates Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lawyer For Filing "Frivolous" PIL Against A Sitting Judge

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa initiated disciplinary proceedings against an advocate for filing a PIL against Bombay High Court Judge – Justice Revati Mohite Dere – and allegedly maligning and tarnishing hers as well as the Judiciary’s image.

The Bar Council has constituted a 3-member disciplinary committee against Advocate Mursalin Shaikh “for making the frivolous allegations (against J Dere) viral in social media which amounts to cheap publicity and sensationalizing and scandalizing the image of Judiciary.”

The lawyer had earlier sought orders against appointment of Justice DY Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was dismissed.

JEE Mains | Why 75% Marks In XII Boards Mandatory When There Is A Qualifying Exam? Bombay High Court Asks NTA

The Bombay High Court on Thursday sought to know the purpose of eligibility criteria of 75 percent marks in boards despite there being a qualifying exam for admission to IITs, NITs, IIITs etc.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a public interest litigation filed by activist Anubha Sahai challenging eligibility criteria of minimum 75% marks in Class XII. The court referred to the 2019 cutoff data and noted that the score for top 20 percentile in some boards is even higher than 75 percent. The court questioned whether this relaxation is meaningful.