150 Important Rulings Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part III

1. Guardianship Of Major Child Suffering From Mental Retardation Can Be Granted U/S 7 Of Guardians & Wards Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: ABC v. XYZ Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 417 Noting a lacuna in the law for mentally retarded persons, the Bombay High Court extended the scope of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1980 to allow guardianship of an adult suffering from mental retardation. Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that provisions of the Mental Health Act, both the repealed and the existing Acts, did not cover mental retardation under the definition of mental illness. The court noted the existing Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 unlike the repealed Act doesn't have a provision for the District Court to appoint a suitable person as Guardian of a person suffering from mental illness and incapable of taking care of himself. “Thus, in my view the only remedy available in such cases is for the Petitioner to apply under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the Petitioner to be appointed as Guardian of the person, despite he/she being a major, but suffering from mental retardation,” the bench said. 2. Denying Access To Own House Amounts To Denial Of Basic Amenities: Bombay High Court Revokes Gift Deeds After Son Fails To Maintain Mother Case Title: Ashwin Bharat Khater v. Urvashi Bharat Khater Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 430 Observing that the denial of access to one's own house amounts to denial of basic amenities, the Bombay High Court upheld the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal's order revoking two gift deeds executed by an elderly woman in favour of her son and directed the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the subject property. Justice Sandeep V Marne held so upon finding that the son had failed to perform his duty to provide basic amenities and physical needs to his widowed mother. “The Gifts were executed out of natural love and affection towards son, which was the only possible consideration for execution thereof. Inbuilt in such love and affection is the duty of the son to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the widowed mother. The events that have occurred post execution of gift deeds so indicate that such love and affection between the Mother and son no longer exists. Along with love and affection, the son has perhaps failed to perform the duty of providing the basic amenities and physical needs to his mother. It was never son's property. He had no right to seek gift thereof”, the court observed. 3. Comity Of Courts Not Weapon To Leave Litigant Remediless: Bombay High Court Stays Singapore Court Order Against Shaadi.com CEO Anupam Mittal Case Title: Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 434 The Bombay High Court temporarily stayed the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the Singapore High Court against Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of Shaadi.com. The Singapore High Court order restrained Mittal from proceeding with his petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging oppression and mismanagement of People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd, the parent company of Shaadi.com. Justice Manish Pitale observed that disputes regarding oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable in India and the principle of comity of courts cannot prevent a litigant from pursuing the only available legal remedy. 4. Delay Beyond 90 Days For Appeal Under NIA Act Can Be Condoned, Rules Bombay High Court; Disagrees With Views Of Kerala & Calcutta HCs Case Title: Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 437 The Bombay High Court held that an appeal against a trial court's order can be entertained by the appellate court even after the lapse of statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the National Investigating Agency(NIA) Act, 2008. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse read down the 2nd proviso to Section 21 (5) of the NIA Act and allowed an application filed by a terror accused seeking to condone the delay of 838 days in filing his bail appeal in HC. “Courts exist to do justice. Access to justice is a fundamental right and cannot be diluted. If despite 'sufficient cause' being shown, if an appeal under Section 21(5), 2nd proviso cannot be entertained, this would lead to depriving an accused of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution.” “If the provision were to be held mandatory…the doors of justice will be shut, leading to travesty of justice, which cannot be permitted by Courts of Law,” the court added. 5. Bombay High Court Comes To Aid Of Woman Stuck With Ex-Husband's Name Wrongly Added To Child's Birth Certificate Case Title: M v. Navi Municipal Corporation and Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 440 Expressing...

150 Important Rulings Of Bombay High Court In 2023: Part III

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags