Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

The State of Maharashtra Vs Guddu Krish Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

Ansari Mohammed Zaki vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. vs The Chief Conciliator, under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited Vs The State of Maharashtra & ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

Bafna Motors Private Limited versus Amanulla Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

M/s Atul & Arkade Realty v. I.A. & I.C. Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Application No. 72 of 2013, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 186

Prajith Thayyil Kallil S/o Jogesh K J Versus The State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 187

Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP Versus Income Tax Officer Ward, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 188

ABC Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.,  2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 189

ROUND-UP

1. Can't Get Carried Away By Heinousness Of Crime – Bombay High Court Acquits Man on Death Row

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra Vs Guddu Krish Yadav

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

The court acquitted a man sentenced to death by a sessions court in 2015 for the double murder of a colleague and his wife by pouring acid on the sleeping couple as revenge tactic for complaining to about him their employer.

"Merely because the crime is heinous and brutal, it would not be just to get carried away sans any legal proof required to substantiate the charge of murder on the accused," the bench observed noting that the police seems to have fabricated the dying declaration.

2. "Sell Builder's Property In 15 Days If No Settlement With Buyer": Bombay High Court On Unexecuted MAHARera Orders

Case Title: Ansari Mohammed Zaki vs The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

Cracking the whip against revenue authorities who failed to execute MahaRERA orders in favour of a flat purchaser, the Bombay High Court directed the attachment and sale of a builder's property within merely 15 days if settlement talks fail.

3. Bombay High Court Imposes 2 Lakh Cost On Adani Electricity For Workers Union, Says Law So Unambiguous Even Reliance Or BSES Didn't Raise Dispute

Case Title: Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. vs The Chief Conciliator, under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

The Court imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on Adani Electricity Limited payable to Mumbai Electric Workers' Union while dismissing a petition in which the company claimed it was no covered under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (MIR Act).

4. Stamp Duty Refund Also Applicable To All Development Agreements Signed Between Sep, 2020- March 2021 - Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited Vs The State of Maharashtra & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

All Development Agreements signed between September 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 would qualify for 1.5-2% refund of stamp duty as per the scheme announced by the Maharashtra Government during the Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020, the Bombay High Court ruled.

In the landmark judgement, the HC held that the stamp duty payable on a Development Agreement is as per the duty payable on a Conveyance under Article 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and, therefore, Development Agreement would have to be treated at par with an instrument of Conveyance.

5. Claim For Recovery Of Security Deposit Or Damages Under License Agreement Is Arbitrable & Not Barred By Section 41 Of The Small Cause Courts Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bafna Motors Private Limited versus Amanulla Khan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

The Bombay High Court reiterated that where the parties to a Leave and License Agreement are governed by an Arbitration Agreement, determination of the dispute relating to recovery of the security deposit under the said License Agreement through arbitration is legally permissible.

The Single Bench of held that the expression "charges" as provided under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Causes Court with respect to a dispute between a licensor and a licensee relating to recovery of an immovable property situated in Greater Bombay or recovery of licence fee, charges or rent, cannot subsume in its fold a claim for damages.

6. The Court Shall Refer The Parties To Arbitration When There Is A Duality Of Expert Opinion As To The Genuineness Of The Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Atul & Arkade Realty v. I.A. & I.C. Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Application No. 72 of 2013.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 186

The Bombay High Court held that when an allegation as to the fraud and forgery committed in the execution of the agreement is made and there is a duality of expert opinion on the genuineness of the agreement, the court shall refer the matter to the arbitrator.

The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar has held that when the underlying document in which the arbitration agreement is contained is alleged to be affected by fraud and forgery and there is uncertainty as to the veracity of the signatures on the agreement, the Court shall appoint the arbitrator to decide on the dispute.

7. Can Transit Anticipatory Bail Be Granted For Offences In Other States? Bombay High Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: Prajith Thayyil Kallil S/o Jogesh K J Versus The State of Maharashtra, and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 187

The division bench of the Bombay High Court referred to a full bench the question whether the trial courts or High Courts can grant transit anticipatory bail to an accused when the offence against him is registered in another state, beyond the court's jurisdiction.

A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and S V Kotwal widened the scope of the reference by adding issues like whether such courts are empowered to grant permanent anticipatory bail or if protection can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. Credit Worthiness Of The Creditor And Genuineness Of Transaction Explained By The Assessee: Bombay High Court Quashes Re-assessment Notice

Case Title: Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP Versus Income Tax Officer Ward

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 188

The Bombay High Court quashed a reassessment notice after the assessee explained the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction.

The division bench observed that the re-opening proposed was purely based on a change of opinion. The assessing officer was also satisfied with the credit worthiness and details provided by third party lenders.

9. Maharashtra Govt Agrees To Consider Appointment Of Woman To Police Department Three Yrs After Medical Test Declared Her 'Male'

Case Title: ABC Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 189

The Bombay High Court disposed of a petition after the State Government assured the court that it would sympathetically and expeditiously consider the case of a young woman for appointment to a non-constabulary post in the police department, three years after a medical test declared her a "male."

The woman had qualified with flying colours in 2018 from the Nashik Rural Police Recruitment drive from the Scheduled Caste category but based on her medical test, her marks didn't make the cut off for the men's category.