Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part II]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216 – 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435:Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce PleaCase Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a woman's application challenging Family Court Mumbai's jurisdiction over her husband's divorce petition observing that the couple's actual last place of joint residence is in the US. “Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “last residing together in India”. In my view such words “in India”, can't be read in the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court observed.Although Adultery Is Grounds For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay High CourtCase Title: ABC v. XYZCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217The Bombay High Court held that adultery is a ground for divorce but cannot be a ground for denying custody of a child.Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator seeking custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged wife on grounds of adultery. “Adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can't be a ground for not granting custody”, the court observed.Director General Of Shipping's 2022 Order For Certification Of Accommodation Barges Not Applicable To Ships Registered Under Coastal Vessels Act: Bombay HCCase Title: Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218The Bombay High Court held that the 2022 order of the Director General of Shipping for certification of accommodation barges does not apply to vessels which are not Indian ships registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, of 1858.A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla temporarily stayed orders of the Directorate General of Shipping to detain three of the petitioner's non-self-propelled accommodation barges registered under the Coastal Vessels Act, of 1838.Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: NP Enterprises v. General Manager, Western RailwayCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219The High Court of Bombay held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark of arbitration and the rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is applicable with equal force in all quasi-judicial proceedings.Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008Case Title: Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for alleged abetment of violence and public property damage arising out of a stone pelting incident in 2008.Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi of the Aurangabad bench set aside lower court orders refusing to discharge Thackeray in a case involving MNS supporters allegedly attacking a state transport (ST) bus during a protest demanding his release from custody.“In absence of any material on record to show instigation on the part of petitioner in the present crime, charge against petitioner is groundless and Trial Court as well as Sessions Court have failed to appreciate this vital aspect and have erred in rejecting prayer of petitioner for discharge. The impugned orders are therefore unsustainable in law and facts of the case”, the court held.Power Of General Manager Of Employer To Confirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Contrary To Principles Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Telex Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Central RailwayCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221The High Court of Bombay held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from a panel unilaterally prepared by a party, it must be broad and diverse to allow free choice to the other party and any deviation would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.Arbitrator's Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not ...

Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part II]

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags