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

Nominal IndexA v. B 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 620Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 3ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 5Reports/JudgmentsDomestic Violence Case Can Be Transferred From Magistrate To Family Court: Bombay High CourtCase Title: A v. BCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 620The Bombay High Court held that an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) before a Magistrate seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 can be transferred to a Family Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Section 12 under the DV Act empowers an aggrieved party or any person on their behalf to file an application to the Magistrate seeking protection orders, residence, monetary reliefs, custody and compensation under Sections 18-22 of the Act. Justice Kamal Khata held the reliefs under the above Sections are meant to redress the breach of civil rights and even the proceedings in Family Courts are civil in nature."In my view, the High Court would have power to transfer the case from the Magistrate to the Family Court whether or not it has jurisdiction to try it to meet the ends of justice, to convenience the parties and more importantly to lead evidence before one Court, specially when the issues may be common, and between the same parties, to save both energy and expense, to save the precious time of Court and prevent conflicting views and multiplicity of proceedings.” Therefore, the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act by virtue of Section 7(2) and Section 26 of the DV Act read with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court held.Following, Abusing Woman Few Times Wouldn't Shock 'Sense Of Decency', No Offence U/S 354 IPC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621Following a woman a couple of times, abusing and pushing her with the bicycle can be 'annoying' acts but wouldn't constitute an offence under 354 of the IPC, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently held.The court added that the woman failed to state if the accused touched her inappropriately or pushed a specific body part, embarrassing her.“As regards following and abusing P.W. 1 (victim), the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman,” it held. Accordingly, the court acquitted a man who was convicted under Section 354 of the IPC which is the use of assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty).Wildlife Protection Act | Cancer Drug Camptothecin Not Forest Produce – Bombay High Court Quashes Cases Against Pharma Company After 16 YrsCase Title: Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622The Bombay High Court held that Camptothecin - a cancer drug, cannot be considered a "forest produce" under the law as it undergoes extensive chemical processing from the original raw material obtained from Narkya trees.The court observed, "It is well known, there is a difference between physical change and chemical change. Physical change can be brought about easily and at the same time, the original material can also be brought back easily, but it is not possible in the case chemical change." The Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and SC Chandak also held that a pharmaceutical company in possession of Camptothecin, without knowledge or evidence that the original raw material was illegally procured - cannot be prosecuted under wildlife and forest conversation laws.The court allowed all the writ petitions filed by Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd, formerly known as Dabur Pharma and its manager and quashed all criminal cases against them under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, Indian Penal Code and Bombay Forest Rules.Abetment Of Suicide Charge Can't Be Converted To Murder Charge Based On 'Stray Observations' Of Medical Officer: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)Case Title: Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623The Bombay High Court recently quashed a Sessions Court order directing addition of murder charge against three accused in a 2014 dowry death case in Pune observing that accused couldn't be convicted based on stray observations of the medical officer.“Imagination cannot be taken to such an extent to prosecute the Accused for [such...

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

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags