Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103

Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105

Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107

Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108

Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109

Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

Bhagyashri v Jagdish 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112

Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113

Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS

1. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix

Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release.

The bench observed that Netflix and Star were not part of the consent terms, therefore its clauses couldn't be enforced against them. Moreover, Madman cannot seek injunction when the said rights have been acknowledged in the same document (Consent Terms) which granted Madman the rights qua the Film.

2.Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103

A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.

"Asif(Son) can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father's name and other in his mother's name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable."

3. Yes Bank Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar

Case Title - Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

Bombay High Court granted bail to Avantha Group promoter Gautam Thapar accused in a case being investigated by the CBI regarding his alleged involvement in a loan fraud against Yes bank.

The court relied on the clarificatory decision of the Supreme Court in its order dated December, 16 2021 that " if during the course of investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused, merely because a charge sheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to arrest the petitioner, an aspect in general clarified by us in Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 in Siddharth v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr."

4.'Petitioner Has Reached Dot Age': Bombay HC Directs Trial Court To Complete Nonagenarian's Cross-Examination Despite Respondent's Transfer Plea

Case Title: Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105

Giving precedence to the ripe age of a litigant, the Bombay High Court directed Small Causes Court to conclude a 92-year old's cross-examination in a dispute under the Rent Control Act, irrespective of a transfer application filed by the other side pending before the Principal Judge of that court.

Keeping in mind the age of petitioner Trilok Singh Gandhi, the court directed that his cross-examination be completed within two months of receipt of the order and directed the respondent to cooperate with the trial.

5.Right To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement Before Intended Date Lost By Accepting Post-Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

The HC held that an employee who is entitled under the applicable laws to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of such voluntary retirement, loses his right to do so by accepting the retirement benefits.

"We find that the petitioner's conduct of receiving various service benefits from 14.09.2017 disentitle him to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service as prayed by him."

6.Threshold Of 'Public Interest' Must To Prevent Bypassing Of Civil Courts For Enforcement Of Contractual Obligations: Bombay High Court

Case Title :M/s. V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a writ court should not ordinarily exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in contractual matters, unless the same is expedient in public interest.

The bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap took note of the Supreme Court's observations in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. AMR Dev Prabha and others, that the power of judicial review should not be permitted to be invoked in contractual disputes to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.

It observed, "although the threshold for the public interest to exist need not be high nevertheless it is essential to prevent bypassing of civil Courts and use of constitutional avenues for enforcement of contractual obligations."

7.Can Exercise Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Party That Wrongly Benefits From Inaction Of Public Authorities In Discharge Of Public Duty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108

The Bombay High court recently came to the rescue of flat purchasers and allowed interim reliefs against private developers in writ petitions. A bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav regarded that inaction of government bodies against private developers is affecting the rights of innocent individuals. Hence, the court can exercise writ jurisdiction to protect their interests.

8.'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

Case Title :Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109

The HC rejected a writ petition filed by Satara District Bar Association, opposing its decision to establish the Court of an Additional District Judge and the Court of a Civil Judge in Maharashtra's Wai town. The Association had stated that the decision would put Judicial officers, staff and litigants to great difficulty.

"The real difficulty with this Petition is that it is unclear what is the legal right that the Petitioner is asserting when it says that this High Court should not consider establishing a Court at Wai. It seems to us that this is entirely self-serving...We do not deny that the Bar has a role to play in the administration of justice. We however emphatically assert that it is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant."

9.Bombay High Court Lashes Out At Hoteliers For Seeking Reduction Of Liquor License Fees Citing COVID; Dismisses Plea With One Lakh Each Cost

Case Title: Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions seeking concessions on license renewal fees for vending foreign liquor calling them "at best, worthless from start to finish and, at worst, thoroughly irresponsible."

The court called the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners as that of "mind-numbing insensitivity" as the foreign liquor vending hotels "put themselves on the same level as the true victims who fell to the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic."

"We believe it is time to send a firm signal that the time of the court is not to be taken for granted, nor should there be any attempt to gamble on litigation. When a court's time is squandered on frivolous matters, there will be consequences," the bench observed.

10.Compassionate Appointment Exception To Rule Of Selection Procedure: Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Widow

Case Title : Smt. Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

The HC came to the rescue of a widow, who was denied compassionate appointment by the Education Department in place of her deceased husband who was working as a Peon in an educational premises.

She was denied the benefit on the ground that the proposal seeking sanction to the new staffing pattern is pending with the Government. "There is no necessity to have sanction to the new staffing pattern for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed."

11.Either Spouse Can Claim Alimony Under Sec 25 HMA : Bombay High Court Directs Wife To Pay Maintenance To Husband

Case Title : Bhagyashri v Jagdish

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112

In a rare instance the Bombay High Court upheld two orders of the civil court in Nanded, directing a wife, working as a teacher, to pay Rs 3,000 maintenance to her husband by directing the school principal to deduct Rs. 5000 from her salary towards unpaid maintenance since August 2017.

The court rejected the wife's contention that since the couple's marriage had ended with a divorce decree in 2015, after nearly 23 years, the husband couldn't now seek monthly maintenance.

Relying on Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court said, they confer a right on the needy spouse to claim interim or permanent alimony, where a decree of restitution of conjugal rights or divorce has been passed.

12. Advocates Appointed By Legal Aid Or Court Exempt From Filing Certified Copies Of Judgement In Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title :Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113

The Bombay High Court held that the HC Office should accept appeals filed by advocates appointed by the Legal Aid Service Authority or the court, even if the advocate fails to attach certified copies of the judgements they are challenging.

"Office to accept the papers and register the same as in other proceedings. These directions would be applicable to all Advocates who are appointed either by the Court or by the Legal Aid Services Authority. Non-filing of the certified copy of the judgment shall not be an impediment to accept the papers and register the Appeals by the office," the bench said.

13. Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Tata Communications Transformation Services

Case Title: Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for different assessment years. All notices for the initiation of assessment proceedings have been issued after April 1, 2021

The issue raised was whether, after the introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, substituting the then existing provisions, the substituted provisions would survive and be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period.

The court held that when the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies that something is to be done in a particular manner, then, that thing must be done in that specified manner alone, and any other method of performance cannot be upheld. Hence, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after April 1, 2021 must comply with the amended provisions of the law and cannot be sustained on the basis of the erstwhile provision.

14. "No Overt Act" - Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 10 Tribal Accused In Palghar Mob Lynching, Refuses Bail To 8 Others

Case Title- Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to 10 tribals accused in the Palghar mob lynching cases of 2020 in which three people were lynched including two Sadhus. The court denied bail to eight others. Earlier, in January 2021, the special court granted bail to 89 accused in the case.

The court distinguished between those present at the site and merely involved in instigating the attackers from those who are seen assaulting the deceased in the video footage.

She observed that "no overt act" of violence is attributed to the 10 even though they are seen in the CCTV footage. "Now when the investigation is complete, their custody is not warranted and they are entitled to be released on bail."