150 Important Judgments Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part I

1. MCOCA | Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute Does Not Invalidate Extension Of Judicial Custody Given By Special Court: Bombay High Court 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 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 MW 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. 2. Alcoholic Breath in Medical Report Proof of Inebriation, Not Entitled to Compensation Under Railway Act – Bombay High Court 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. 3. Wife's Refusal For DNA Test No Ground for Adverse Inference For Maintenance – Bombay High Court 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.” 4. Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Cancelling Johnson & Johnson's License For Baby Powder Production, Says FDA Action 'Arbitrary' 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. 5. Award Against Guarantor Who Is Not Member Of Multi State Co-Op Society, Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court 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. 6. Assessee Not Entitled for Deduction without A...

150 Important Judgments Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part I

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags