Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

Nominal Index Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters Maniar Associates LLP Vs. Vijay Niwas Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors Dilip s/o. Bhavanji Shah versus Errol Moraes Ramesh and ors v Smt. Prakashkaur and ors Jeetendra Navlani vs State of Maharashtra Concrete Additives and Chemicals Pvt Ltd versus S N Engineering Services Pvt Ltd Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Homi Pheroze Ghandy and Anr. Aparna Abhitabh Chatterjee v Union of India ABC v. UOI and others Rajneesh Jaiswal vs Dil Raju & Ors Ganesh Nivrutti Ghadge v State of Maharashtra and ors Sushama Arun Patil v The State of Maharashtra and ors The Commissioner of Customs II versus Axiom Cordages Ltd J M Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Eknath Genu Pawar & ors V Dattu Santram Haral & orsROUND-UP 1. "Deserves No Sympathy": Bombay High Court Enhances Punishment, Sentences Watchman To Death For Employer's Dacoity & Murder Case Title: Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 128 The Bombay High Court awarded the death penalty to a watchman found guilty of dacoity and the "calculated and cold blooded" murder of his employers, a plan he executed with two of his friends and three former employees of the couple. The bench upheld the life imprisonment awarded to five accused but enhanced watchman Shiv Kumar Saket's punishment on the State's appeal as he had "betrayed the trust of his employer." 2. Occupier Of Flat Entitled To Transit Rent For Period Of Dispossession During Redevelopment : Bombay High Court Case Title: Maniar Associates LLP Vs. Vijay Niwas Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 129 The person in possession of a tenement being re-developed will be entitled to transit rent in the absence of a court order stating otherwise, even if he or she doesn't own the premises, the Bombay High Court has held. In the present case, the HC also asked the developer to put the occupant in possession of the redeveloped property if his dispute with the flat owner is not finally decided by then. 3. Court Does Not Have Adjudicatory Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Dilip s/o. Bhavanji Shah versus Errol Moraes Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 130 The Bombay High Court ruled that the Court does not have the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to consider the legality of the reasons set out by the arbitral tribunal in its order permitting the examination of a witness. The Single Bench ruled that once the arbitral tribunal had formed a prima facie opinion that a particular witness is required to be examined by a party in the arbitral proceedings, the reasons laid down by the tribunal in its order cannot be revisited and scrutinized by the Court, since proceeding under Section 27 of the A&C Act are not in the nature of an appeal and the Court does not have any adjudicatory powers under Section 27. The court observed, "The fact remains that as respondent no.3 (occupier) is in possession of the tenement in question and would now be handing over possession of such tenement to the petitioner/society… The party who is dispossessed, would be entitled to the transit rent as it is such party who is put to hardship." 4. Provision For Seeking Adjournment Under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC Is Rule Of Procedure, Directory In Nature: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ramesh and ors v Smt. Prakashkaur and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 131 The Bombay High court adjudicated how Rules of procedure (in this case provision of seeking adjournments under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC) are indeed "handmaids of justice" and are meant to advance ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same. Accordingly, the court agreed to grant more opportunities for evidence to a recalcitrant Petitioner at his own responsibility, on payment of heavy costs of Rs. 1 lakh. 5. FIR For Obstructing Public Servant Against Param Bir's Alleged Aide Jeetendra Navlani Quashed By Bombay High Court Case Title: Jeetendra Navlani vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 132 The Bombay HC quashed an FIR against one Jeetendra Navlani who was alleged to be connected to the former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh by the investigating officer of the case, Anup Dange. Navlani is a developer and owner of a restaurant & bar in South Mumbai, was booked under Section 186 IPC for causing obstruction to a public servant from performing his duty in November 2019. The bench quashed the FIR on the grounds of contradictory witness statements. Moreover, that after the incident the police officials had not brought the Applicant to the police...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags