Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 To April 7, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 176 - 187]Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. v. HDFC Bank Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180Motwane Private Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 181'K' Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 182Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Soheb Sageerali Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 184Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 185Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 186Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. v. Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 187Reports/JudgmentsECI Has Already Taken Steps: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Directions On ECI To Create Voter Awareness For 'NOTA'Case Title: Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to create awareness in public about the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option on electronic voting machines (EVM).A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM Joshi noted that the petitioner, one Suhas Wankhede, had previously filed an identical PIL in which the court had addressed the issue adequately.“We find that the Election Commission has already come out with a manual on Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), which was published in July 2020. The SVEEP Strategy 2022-2025 (4) was also published…Having considered the above factors and the steps taken by the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, and the fact that this Petitioner had filed an identical Petition earlier, this PIL Petition is dismissed”, the court further observed.No Requirement Of Fresh Section 21 Notice For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Aside Under Section 34: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales CorporationCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177The High Court of Bombay held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute.Waiver Of Arbitrator's Ineligibility Must Be Made By Agreement In Writing, Section 12(5) Does Not Provide For Deemed Consent: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. v. HDFC Bank LimitedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise.Motor Accident Claims | Driver With Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licence Can Drive Light Motor Vehicles: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179The Bombay High Court held that having a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) driving licence does not make a person ineligible to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), as section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for a minimum one-year-old LMV licence as a pre-requisite for HGV licence.Justice Shivkumar Dige set aside a judgment by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refused to hold an insurance company liable in a motor accident on the ground that the offending vehicle was an LMV, but the driver possessed a driving license for HGV.“This Section prescribes one year minimum driving experience in light motor vehicle before a person issuing driving license to drive a transport vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case the driver of offending vehicle was holding driving license for heavy good vehicle. Though it is categorized in different category, as per Section 10 but after getting experience in driving LMV, the license in HGV is issued. So possessing the license of HGV and driving the LMV vehicle cannot be a ground to say that the driver was not eligible to drive the LMV vehicle”, the court observed.Revenue Officers Bound By Decisions Of Appellate Authorities While Disposing Quasi-Judicial Issues: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180The Bombay High Court held that the revenue officers ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 To April 7, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags