Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024

2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 617 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 654Nominal Index:G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm vs. Minakshi Balasao Magdum And Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 617Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619Pradipsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 620Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 621Sunfresh Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 622Anna Mathew vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 623Harsh Mehta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 624Khimjibhai Patadia vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 625Jayanth Kumar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 626Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627Abdul Samad Akbar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 628Bharat Dedhia vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 629Vijay Fasale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 630A.H. Wadia Charity Trust & Ors. vs. Airport Authority of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 631Rekha Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 632Ashwini Ashish Dighe vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 633Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 634Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635Shriraj Nageshwar Aepurwar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 636ABC vs Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 637Gujarati Kelavani Mandal & Anr. vs. The General Manager, Central Railway & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 638M/s. Asahi India Glass Ltd. vs.Nadeem A. A. Dolare, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 639Jaiprakash Bawiskar The State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 640Rajendra Vishwanath Moon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 641Adarsh Kumar Jain and Others v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 642Sunita Balaji Tiwari and Ors. v. Protrans Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 643Faiyaz Shaikh vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 644M/s. Venus Worldwide Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 645ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 646Case Title: Amol Kirtikar vs Ravindra Waikar, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 647SecLink Technologies Corporation vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 648Lalit Modi vs BCCI and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 649Zahid Khamisa vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 650Imperial Consultants and Securities vs. Deputy CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 651Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 652Nav Chetna Charitable Trust vs, CIT (Exemption), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 653Chandrabhan Atulkar v. MOIL Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 654Judgments/Final Orders: Bombay High Court Fines Licensee Rs 5 Lakh For 'Harassing Landowners' Regarding Compensation For Land Acquired For Kohlapur AirportCase title: G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm vs. Minakshi Balasao Magdum And Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 617The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on a litigant for claiming untenable tenancy rights in a land, despite being a mere licensee.In doing so the court found litigant's plea to be abuse of the process of law, intended to harass the landowners. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna said that the petitioner, without having a semblance of a right pertaining to the ownership of land of three respondents, which was acquired for Kohlapur airport had not "left a single stone unturned to create obstacles" so that the three respondents are harassed and deprived of the compensation amount.After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp PropertiesCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance.SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags