Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 - November 17, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593Nominal Index:Naresh Goyal v. ED, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582M/S. Truly Pest Solution Private Limited vs. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineering, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584Shailesh Ranka and others vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585Varanium Cloud Limited And Anr. vs. Rolta Private Limited And Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 586Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 587Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. NIA & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 588S v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 589State of Maharashtra vs Haribhau, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 590Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal, Employees Provident Fund, 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 591Satish Kakade vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 592Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 593Judgments/Final Orders: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal On Medical GroundsCase Title: Naresh Goyal v. EDCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 580The Bombay High Court has made Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal's interim bail absolute in relation to a money laundering case.A single-judge bench of Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar, who had earlier granted interim bail to Goyal made it absolute.RTI | Disclosure Of Marks Obtained By Candidates In Public Recruitment Process Is Not Invasion Of Privacy: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information OfficerCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process would not invade the privacy of the candidates and that such disclosure is permissible under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed the orders passed by a Public Information Officer (PIO) and the subsequent ones passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities, which denied disclosure of information related to the marks obtained by the candidates in a public recruitment process, stating that the same would invade their right to privacy.[Maharashtra Elections] Court Can Interfere In Electoral Process Only To Progress And Further It: HC Denies Relief To Candidate Over Rejected NominationCase Title: Ashish Kishor Gadkari vs Election Commission of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 582The Bombay High Court last week held that the High Courts do have 'jurisdiction' and 'power' to interfere in the electoral process but the same must be exercised only to further the process or progress of the elections.A division bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somasekhar Sundaresan, which was presiding over a vacation court on November 6, refused to grant any relief to one Ashish Gadkari, an independent candidate, whose nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer of the Chembur Constituency in Mumbai, citing procedural lapses.Party Can Waive Arbitrator's Ineligibility U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act By Express Agreement In Writing: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/S. Truly Pest Solution Private Limited Vs. Principal Chief Mechanical EngineeringCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived the ineligibility of the arbitrator by sending a signed letter.Daughter Has No Inheritance Right In Father's Properties If He Died Before 1956, Leaving Behind Daughter & Her Mother: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (November 12) held that a daughter will not have any limited or absolute right of inheritance in the properties of her father, if he has died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain answered a reference - Whether a daughter could acquire any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956, leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well? - made by a single-judge, way back on February 28, 2007.High Court As Court Of Record Can Recall Or Review Orders Passed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shailesh Ranka and others Vs. Windsor Machines Limited...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 - November 17, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags