Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: June 24 To June 30, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 311 - 319]Kapil Suresh Taak v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 311M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited v. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 312Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 313XYZ v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 314Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary & Ors. v. Chembur Trombay Education Society's NG Acharya and DK Marathe College and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 315Karvy Innotech Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 316Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 317Fabricship Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 318Sanjeev Suresh Desai v. UoI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 319Reports/JudgmentsRecording Unnatural Offence With Minor Boys | Bombay HC Grants Bail to POCSO Accused Without Prima Facie Sexual IntentCase Title: Kapil Suresh Taak v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 311The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man booked for allegedly stripping three teenagers, inserting fingers in the anus, abusing them and assaulting them with a leather belt.Justice Anil S Kilor allowed the bail application of one Kapil Suresh Taak observing,“After going through the FIR and the allegations made in the FIR against the Applicant coupled with the material collected during investigation, prima facie nothing is brought on record to show that there was any sexual intent. The case is of physical and mental torture meted out to the minor victims in the background that Applicant and other co-accused have considered them as thieves.”Jurisdiction of High Courts Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act Is Limited To Arbitrary, Capricious And Perverse Orders: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited v. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 312The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to cases where the lower court's order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles on interlocutory injunctions.Section 37 of the Arbitration Act allows appeals against specific orders related to arbitration, including refusals to refer to arbitration, measures under Section 9, and decisions on arbitral awards under Section 34.Bombay High Court Summons Patanjali Director In Trademark Infringement CaseCase Title: Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 313The Bombay High Court directed Patanjali Ayurveda director Rajnish Mishra to appear before it in connection with trademark infringement case filed by Mangalam Organics alleging that Patanjali infringed on packaging and trade dress of its camphor product.Justice RI Chagla was dealing with a contempt application by Mangalam Organics Ltd. against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and others for alleged breach of an ad-interim order dated August 30, 2023.Pune Porsche Accident | 'All Sympathies For Victims But Court Is Bound To Implement Law': Bombay HC While Releasing Minor AccusedCase Title: XYZ v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 314The Bombay High Court, while ordering the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case, criticised the “haphazard manner” in which the prosecution and law enforcement agencies handled the situation, influenced by public outcry. The Court said:“We can only express our dismay and perturbation by describing the whole approach as an unfortunate incident and hope and trust that the future course of action to be chartered, shall be in accordance with existing provisions of law, avoiding any haste. However, at this stage, while pronouncing upon the reliefs sought before us, in the Writ Petition we deem it necessary to discharge our solemn obligation, by adherence to the Rule of Law and we feel bound by it, though the respondents, the law enforcing agencies have succumbed to the public pressure, but we are of the firm opinion that the Rule of law must prevail in every situation, howsoever catastrophic or calamitous the situation may be.”Calling the accident a “ghastly” incident, a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, quoting Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."The court added, “It is our bounden duty to prioritize justice above everything else, and definitely, we are not swayed away by the uproar created upon occurrence of the ghastly mishap, for which allegedly the CCL is personally responsible and which has resulted in loss of two innocent lives. We have all sympathies for the victim and their families but as a Court of Law, we are bound to implement the law as it stands. Law is an objective thing and there it stands, irrespective of whether it entails any hardship.” The court said that the minor has to be...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: June 24 To June 30, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags