Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 To October 22, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 483 - 493]Sandip Sundarrao Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 483Bhushan s/o. Sangappa Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 484Satyaseelan Kuttappan v. PP Sudhakaran and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 485Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Loran Leasing And Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 486Parvi Ashish Chakravarti v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457Baramati Agro Ltd. v. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 488Faaiz Anwar Qureshi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 489Nilesh s/o Ajinath Udmale, v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 490Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 491Aarti w/o Santosh Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 492Swiss Re Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 493Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Complainant Who Admitted To Consenting To Abortion, Quashes Forced Abortion CaseCase Title: Sandip Sundarrao Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 483While quashing a rape and causing miscarriage without consent case, the Bombay High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25000 on a woman who consented to quashing of the case admitting that she had voluntarily terminated her pregnancy.A division bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice NR Borkar observed that there is no prima facie case of rape under false promise of marriage as she had been married while having physical relations with the accused. The records indicated that she consented to the termination of pregnancy, the court further noted.Bombay High Court Refuses To Reinstate College Student Who Submitted Caste Validity Certificate After Deadline Due To Delay By Scrutiny CommitteeCase Title: Bhushan s/o. Sangappa Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 484The Bombay High Court refused to reinstate the college admission of a student who failed to submit a Caste Validity Certificate on time due to a delay by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in processing his application.A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla explained that the fixation of specific dates as deadlines for students was a matter of policy, and the court could only direct authorities to relax the policy when necessary to protect fundamental rights or rectify illegalities. In this case, there was no such necessity. “…it would be not appropriate on the part of this Court to direct the authorities to restore the admission of the Petitioner on the ground that there was no fault on his part in submitting the Validity Certificate on or before the last date fixed for that purpose”,The court also held that time frame prescribed in Rule 18(5) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 to process the applications is directory, not mandatory.S. 141 NI Act | No Restriction On Making Unregistered Firm An Accused In A Cheque Bounce Case: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Satyaseelan Kuttappan v. PP Sudhakaran and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 485The Bombay High Court held that an unregistered partnership firm can be made an accused in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur bench observed that the status of registration of the partnership firm is irrelevant on proceedings for cheque dishonour under the NI Act.“registration or non-registration of the partnership firm will have no bearing insofar as Section 141 of the Act of 1881 is concerned. The provision under Section 141 of the Act of 1881 makes it mandatory to arraign the company or the firm, as the case may be, as party accused in the complaint. This provision or any other provision of the Act of 1881 does not put embargo on making unregistered partnership firm an accused”, the court held.Counter Claim For Damages From Tenant No Defence To Escape Admitted Liability Of Refunding Tenant's Security Deposit: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Loran Leasing And Infotech Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 486Owner filing a suit for damages from his licensee cannot be the only defense to the admitted liability of refunding a licensee’s security deposit, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant a company unconditional leave to defend a summary suit.Justice Kamal Khata directed the owner of a 17,196 sq ft premises in Mumbai - Loran Leasing and Infotech Pvt.- to deposit the entire security deposit of over Rs. 90 lakh along with 18% interest in court and only then defend the suit filed by licensee Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. If the defendant Loran fails to pay the amount, Play Games would be entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree against Loran, the court ordered.“In the present case the defence is everything else but genuine or based on good faith… It is amply clear that the Defendant...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 To October 22, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags