Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 15 August To 20 August, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 290-303]Chirag R. Mehta v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 290 Prathamesh v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 291 Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 292 S. J. Enterprises & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 293 Vishwajit Sud & Co. v. L & T Stec JV, Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 294 Siddhi Real Estate Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 295 Vipul Chitalia v. CBI and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 296 Subodh M Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 297 Ashok Palav Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Pankaj Bhagubhai Desai & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 298 Shyamwar Pinturam Rai v. CBI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 299 Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Insurance Ombudsman & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 300 Madhukar Makaji Mudgul v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 301 Reports/Judgments [Order 7 Rule 11 CPC] Civil Court's Jurisdiction Not Ousted Where Procedure Prescribed In Particular Statute Not Followed: Bombay High Court Case Title: Chirag R. Mehta v. The State Of Karnataka Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 290 The Bombay High Court held that the court's power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a drastic power and must be exercised carefully. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated in her order, "The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate the civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of power are stringent". Bombay High Court Holds Special Hearing On Independence Day, Allows Badminton Player's Wild Card Entry In International Tournament Case Title: Prathamesh v. Union of India and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 291 The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court allowed badminton player Prathamesh Kulkarni a wild card entry in an international tournament to be held from August 30 at Pune. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Arun Pednekar held a special hearing on Independence Day due to paucity of time as the deadline for petitioner's name to be added to the final list of participants was 5 PM on August 15. The court had issued notice to respondents on August 12 and scheduled a special hearing on August 15. Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 27 Evidence Act Not Legal Evidence Qua A Non-Maker Accused: Bombay High Court Case title: Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 292 The Bombay High Court held that a disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not legal evidence qua a non-maker accused. The bench of Justice Nijamoddin Jahiroddin Jamadar observed thus while granting bail to one Raju Jokhanprasad Gupta in a case registered against him under Section 307 of IPC [Attempt to murder]. Customs Authorities Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Before Expiry Of The Limitation Period For Filing An Appeal: Bombay High Court Case Title: S. J. Enterprises & Anr. v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 293 The Bombay High Court reiterated that Customs Authorities cannot encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee before the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal. Observing that the CBEC circular no. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 is binding on the Customs Authorities, the Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Sonak directed the Commissioner of Customs to ensure that there is no breach of the CBEC instructions or disobedience of judicial orders in the future. Contract Discharged By Settlement – Dispute Under Contract Is A Deadwood; Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: Vishwajit Sud & Co. v. L & T Stec JV, Mumbai Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 294 The Bombay High Court ruled that once a settlement is arrived at by the parties, the contract between the parties stands discharged by mutual agreement and hence, the dispute arising under the said contract is a deadwood which cannot be referred to arbitration. Observing that a party who conceals or suppresses facts, including the factum of a settlement, is disentitled to relief under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that a party cannot be allowed to resurrect the dead issues and foist an unwarranted arbitration after the contract between them stood discharged by a complete accord and satisfaction in terms of the settlement agreement arrived between them. Bombay High Court Reprimands Lawyer For Trying To Get Court Staff To Change Order Case Title: Siddhi Real Estate Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 295 Bombay High Court...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 15 August To 20 August, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags