Bombay High Court Civil Law Digest 2023

Judgments on CPC, Land Acquisition, Motor Accidents Compensation, Railway Accidents Compensation, Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and Other Civil CasesCivil Procedure Code Opportunity To Examine Vital Witness Cannot Be Denied Only Due To Failure To Show Reason For Omitting Name In Witness List: Bombay High Court 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.” Prayers For Partition & Separate Possession Can't Be Granted In Execution Proceedings: Bombay High Court 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. Application For Summary Judgment Under CPC Maintainable Even After Conversion Of Summary Suit To Commercial Suit: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises and Anr. v. Rajesh Jugraj Madhani Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 89 The Bombay High Court held that the application for summary judgment before the Civil Court under Order 13-A of the CPC by a person, whose summary suit is converted to commercial suit, is maintainable. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that such conversion would not cause the petitioner to lose both right to seek summary judgment under Order 13-A and pronouncement of judgment under Order 37 Rule 3. Section 151 CPC | Bombay High Court Allows Correction In Sale Deed After 38 Yrs Case Title: Dagadu Shivaji Lodhe And Anr v. Bhaurao Fakira Dongre And Ors Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 143 Observing that the Court's powers under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to rectify errors and do substantial justice, the Bombay High Court allowed correction in a sale deed after thirty-eight years. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to meet the ends of justice, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh at the Aurangabad bench observed. Order 23 CPC | Defendant Can Be Made Plaintiff Upon Partial Withdrawal Of Suit If No Conflict Of Interest With Original Plaintiff: Bombay High Court Case Title: Nalini @ Madhavi Madhukar Murkute v. Deepak Manohar Gaikwad and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 172 The Bombay High Court held that when a plaintiff withdraws a suit partially, conversion of a defendant to a plaintiff is allowed, provided the defendant's interest against other defendants regarding the subject matter property is identical with the plaintiff's. Justice MM Sathaye set aside a Civil Court order allowing a defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff in a partition suit despite there being a conflict of interest with the original plaintiff. Plaintiff Alleging Breach Of Confidentiality Must Produce Confidential Info Before Court In Sealed Cover: Bombay High Court Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirtech Private Limited & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 191 The Bombay High Court held that if a plaintiff is alleging breach of confidentiality by the defendants, it has to produce the confidential information before the court in a sealed cover. Justice Manish Pitale observed that the High Court cannot verify the allegations of breach of confidentiality without perusing the confidential information. The court vacated its ex-parte interim order in favour of Rochem Separation Systems in a copyright infringement suit against Nirtech Private Limited. PVR v. Proteus LLP | Payee's Bank Account Being In A Particular City Does Not Mean Bill Is Payable In That City: Bombay High Court Case Title: PVR Ltd. v. M/S Proetus Ventures LLP and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 313 Merely receiver's bank account mentioned in a bill being in a particular city does not amount to the bill being payable in that city, the Bombay High Court held. Justice Arif S Doctor decreed PVR's commercial summary suit against one Proteus LLP and directed Proteus to pay its dues for...

Bombay High Court Civil Law Digest 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags