Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 30 – October 6, 2024

Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 502)Nominal Index Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498Latabai Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 499State of Maharashtra vs Sunil Kuchkoravi, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 500Kisan Moulding Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) Konkan Thane & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 501Safset Agencies Private Ltd.vs. Riddhi Rahul Kumar Gosalia & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 502Judgments/Final Orders: [Commercial Courts Act] IPR Suits Involving Infringement Can Be Ordinarily Instituted Without Exhausting Mediation U/S 12-A: Bombay HCCase title: Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497The Bombay High Court has observed that a plea of urgent interim relief by bypassing pre-litigation mediation as stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can be rejected only in cases of deception or falsity apparent from the plaint itself.With respect IPR suits involving infringement or passing off, a single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stated that such suits could be ordinarily instituted without exhausting the pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the C.C. Act.Tenant Cannot Escape Eviction U/S 12(3)(a) Of Bombay Rent Act In Absence Of Any Valid Dispute About Rent Amount Or Increases: High CourtCase title: Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang KeniCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498The Bombay High Court has observed that in the absence of any dispute by a tenant about the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, the tenant cannot escape eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act if the rent has not been paid within the specified time.A single judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne further observed that a Trial Court cannot look into the issue of 'readiness and willingness to pay rent' of the tenant, if there is no dispute about the amount of rent payable.Accused Not Entitled To Default Bail Just Because Court Failed To Conclude Trial Within 60 Days: Bombay High CourtCase Ttile: Latabai Jadhav vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 499The Bombay High Court recently held that a person is not entitled to default bail just on the ground that the trial in the case is not completed within 60 days as prescribed under section 437 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare refused to grant bail to a woman booked in a fraud and criminal conspiracy case.'Quite Close To Cannibalism' Bombay High Court Upholds Death Sentence Of Man For Killing His Mother, Eating Her OrgansCase Title: State of Maharashtra vs Sunil Kuchkoravi Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 500The Bombay High Court upheld the death sentence awarded to a man, who brutally killed his own mother and later ate her organs.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan stated that, after detailing the manner in which the convict killed his mother, eviscerated her organs and was about to 'cook' some of them by applying salt and chilly powder, said that his conduct indicated "pathological cannibalism." "The act of the convict was quite close to cannibalism," the judges said.Further, the judges expressed shock over the defence of the convict that since he was habitual to consume flesh of cats and pigs, therefore, perhaps he might have committed the said offence.Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Kisan Moulding Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) Konkan Thane & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 501The Bombay High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time consumed in a proceeding initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.The bench of Justice R.I. Chagla excluded 272 days spent in prosecuting a recall application of the arbitral award before the MSME Council. The court observed that a party prosecuting its case in good faith and due diligence, and the prior proceedings were riddled with defect of jurisdiction would get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the time consumed in such proceedings would stand excluded from the purview of limitation.Appellate Court Can Direct Licensee To Pay Compensation Higher Than Contractual Rent During Pendency Of Appeal: Bombay High CourtCase title: Safset Agencies Private Ltd.vs. Riddhi Rahul Kumar Gosalia & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 502The Bombay High Court has observed in the case of license agreements, it is permissible for an Appellate Court to direct the licensee to pay interim compensation to the licensor that is higher than the contractual damages/compensation agreed by the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 30 – October 6, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags