Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 14 October - 20 October, 2024

Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 520 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 542Nominal Index:Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & ors. vs. Anjana Krushna Jamdade & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 520Bajaj Electricals Limited vs. Electronics Mart India Limited & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 521Simpy Bhardwaj vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 522Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 523Tikona Infinet Private Limited versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 524XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 525A. H. Wadia Trust & Ors. vs. The Charity Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 526Shaikh Tareq Mohammad Abdul Latif vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 527Ajay Industrial Corporation vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 528New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Janus Aviation Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 529Tata Capital Limited Versus Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 530X vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 531Thakan @ Nitin Bhausaheb Alhat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 532Rohit Sood v. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 533Anil Desai vs Mahendra Bhingardive, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 534Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa vs Central Information Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 535M/s Soremartec S. A., Luxembourg vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 536Dhule Municipal Commissioner vs. M/s Borse Borthers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 537Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 783/2024), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 538Mr. Shashikant Gangar vs. Aditya Birla Finance Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 539Chandrakant Nimba Patil vs State Election Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 540Sharad Mali vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 541Om Impex versus The State of Maharashtra & ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 542Judgments/Final order: Can't Allow Amendment To Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Merely Because Applicant Was Illiterate, No Due Diligence Shown: Bombay HCCase title: Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & ors. vs. Anjana Krushna Jamdade & anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 520While setting aside an order allowing amendment of plaint after the commencement of trial, the Bombay High Court has observed an illiterate lady obtaining certified copies of sale deeds cannot be said to have exercised 'due diligence', when she was aware of the sale deeds before filing the suit.A single judge bench of Justice S. M. Modak was considering the petitioners' (defendants) challenge to the Trial Court's order, which allowed respondent no. 1's (plaintiff) application for amendment of the plaint after the trial had commenced.Section 134(2) Of Trademarks Act Does Not Bar Applicability Of Clause XIV Of Letters Patent: Bombay High CourtCase title: Bajaj Electricals Limited vs. Electronics Mart India Limited & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 521The Bombay High Court has observed that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 does not bar a plaintiff from seeking leave of the Court to combine the cause of action of 'passing off' with the suit of infringement under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent.A single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla observed that if the legislature had intended that Clause XIV should not be resorted during the enactment of the Trademarks Act, it would have made a provision to that effect in Section 134.Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹6606 Crore Bitcoin Fraud Case, Cites Her Being A Woman, Mother Of Six-Yr-OldCase Title: Simpy Bhardwaj vs Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 522Observing that she is the mother of a six year old, the Bombay High Court last week granted bail to Simpy Bhardwaj, booked under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2023 for her alleged role in India's largest Bitcoin-based Ponzi scheme worth Rs 6,606 crore, related to a Delhi-based firm - Variable Tech Pvt Ltd.Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale observed that since the applicant Bharadwaj is a woman, she is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 45(1) of the Act.Bombay High Court Holds Redevelopment Rights of Society Not Part Of Moratorium Process; Issues Writ Of Mandamus For Redevelopment, Upholding Right to ShelterCase Title: Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 523The Bombay High Court division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and M.S. Sonak has held that if the developer fails to meet its obligations under the Development Agreement, such as paying transit rent and completing construction within the specified time frame, there is a complete failure of consideration, and no rights accrue to it. The court awarded a writ of mandamus for permissions and approvals for redevelopment. It observed that the uncertain outcome of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) shouldn't deprive...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 14 October - 20 October, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags