Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 64]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 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 64]
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
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.
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.