Home
/

News Updates
/
Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up:...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

11 April 2022 5:00 AM GMT

2. Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case On The Condition That Accused & Alleged Victim Shall Do Social Service For 6 Months

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case on the condition that the accused and the alleged victim shall extend social service for 6 months.

The bench of Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice S. M. Modak directed the Applicant and the alleged victim (Respondent No. 2) to obtain certificates from the respective institutes [where they have been directed to extend social services] having rendered community service satisfactorily for the period of six months.

The case was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix/alleged victim on a complaint made by her, however, later on, in Feb 2022, she filed a NOC affidavit saying that she lodged the complaint due to the compatibility issue and misunderstanding between herself and the accused-applicant.

3. Authority Under Maharashtra Police Act Can Extern Gang Members From Area Larger Than Where Criminal Activities Are Committed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118

The Bombay High Court held that the authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can pass externment orders directing externment of a person from much larger area than the one of his illegal activities. However, such order should be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction.

A division bench of Justices VK Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More observed, "Even though the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are registered only in the Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar, but considering the latest modes of transportation, it appears that the authorities below have rightly restricted the petitioners from entering into entire Ahmednagar district to prohibit their criminal activities."

4. Strictly Follow Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines : Bombay High Court To Ola, Uber

Case Title: Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119

The Bombay High Court asked cab aggregators, including Uber India and Ola, who were recently granted provisional licenses under the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020 framed by the Union government, to strictly follow the guidelines.

The court also asked the Maharashtra government to consider customer feedback in the nature of complaints against the aggregators to find out if there is deficiency in the grievance redressal mechanism.

The bench said it did not have the powers to legislate and order conditions for better grievance redressal to be added in the guidelines, it would however consider issuing directions.

"The deficiencies will be addressed in a time-bound manner. The state is at liberty to give suggestions to implement guidelines. The mechanism will have to be consumer-friendly," said a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik.

5. Period Of Suspension Of Govt Servant Not To Be Treated As 'On Duty' Where Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120

The Bombay High Court, through a bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap, held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, then if he is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he is not entitled for regularisation of the period of suspension by treating him to be on duty. The discretion belongs to the competent authority.

In view of registration of FIR under Sections 419 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, a worker in the in the Ordnance Factory, he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules, 1965).

In trial, the Judicial Magistrate observed that considering the nature of evidence on record the charge against the accused (petitioner) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On that premise the said accused were acquitted. The Petitioner had sought revocation of suspension and regularization of suspension period as 'on duty' based on this acquittal.

6. Dissolution Of Marriage By Mutual Consent Permissible Under Muslim Personal Law: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121

Observing that a family court can dissolve the marriage of a Muslim couple by mutual consent under the Muslim Personal Law, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceeding against the husband based on the couple's amicable settlement in the Family Court petition.

The court noted that under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937 all property, marriage, dissolution of marriage including mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship gifts, trusts and trust properties concerning Muslims is governed by the Act.

Moreover, the Family Court was empowered to adjudicate a suit regarding validity of a marriage or a person's matrimonial status under section 7 (1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, the bench said.

7. 'Lamb Has To Be Protected In Fight With Lion': Bombay High Court To Extend Deadline For MSRTC Employees To Resume Duty Till April 22

Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122

The Bombay High Court said that it will order protesting employees of the State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to resume work by April 22 without the fear of administrative action, while concluding hearing in a contempt petition filed by MSRTC against them for not resuming work.

"When there is a fight between the lion and the lamb, the lamb has to be protected," the bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed. The court said it would extend time till April 22 from April 15 for protesting employees to resume work.

Earlier the court had asked MSRTC if it would be willing to allow all its employees to resume work irrespective of criminal cases filed against some of them, and view the situation "compassionately" as it was a question of their livelihood.

However, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy for MSRTC on Monday said it would not be possible to do so for those employees against whom FIRs were registered for resorting to violence.

8. Child Adopted By A Widow Not Entitled To Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123

The Bombay High Court answered in the negative the question of whether the principle of relation back is applicable in case of a son adopted post the demise of the husband of the adopting lady.

A single judge bench of Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni observed, "an adopted son may have rights in future in the property which the family may acquire after his adoption, with regard to the property which has vested in any particular person before his adoption, the adoption does not vest in him any rights with regard to that property."

The Bench was ceased of a property dispute whereby an adoptive son had sold properties belonging to the late husband of his adoptive mother.

9. Every Accused Must Not Be Present At The Spot; Can Still Be Tried As Part Of Chain Of Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124

The Bombay High Court recently considered whether an FIR can be quashed against a petitioner who is not referred to as an accused in the FIR and who was not present at the spot.

A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale & S. M. Modak reiterated the difference between normal criminal law and crimes under of Maharashta Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (MCOC) stating that, "It is not always necessary that every accused must be present on the spot. There are various circumstances in the chain of circumstances. In that chain, it may happen that set of accused persons may be present at the spot, some of the accused have played a role prior to commission of offence and some of them have participated post commission of offence."

Respondent did not dispute that the present Petitioner is not being named as an accused in the FIR. However, he submitted that the investigation so far carried out discloses involvement of the Petitioner in an abetting the main assailants.

10. Undertrial Prisoners' Right To Health: Bombay High Court Permits DHFL Promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan To Undergo Treatment At Private Hospital

Case Title: Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125

In a relief for DHFL promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan, the Bombay High Court allowed him treatment for a limited period at a private hospital while setting aside the trial court's order to shift him to the State-run JJ Hospital.

Justice PD Naik observed that it was a settled principle of law that an undertrial prisoner also had fundamental rights and that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to health.

11. Court May Increase Quantum Of Compensation In Motor Accident Claim, Irrespective Of Who Files Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126

The Bombay High court recently dealt with an appeal by an Insurance Company against the quantum of compensation awarded to an accident victim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, in the course of this appeal, raised the issue of insufficiency of the compensation awarded.

Single Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre noted that though the claimant had not filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation,

"The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and provide for some solace to a victim, who meet with an accident or to the family of the victim who is a sufferer, when the bread-earner is disabled or succumb to the said accident. The duty of the Court in granting compensation to the victim or to his family, for its survival and meet the harness is to ensure 'just' compensation, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant."

12. Writ Petitions On The Ground Of 'Exceptional Circumstances' Against Order Passed By The Arbitral Tribunal Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

The Bombay High Court ruled that remedy against orders passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies elsewhere and the petitioners, aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 16, cannot file Writ Petitions under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground of 'exceptional circumstances'.

A bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar held that it is impermissible for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even on questions with respect to the jurisdictional competence of an Arbitral Tribunal, except in cases where the arbitral tribunal is a statutory tribunal created by a statute.

The High Court observed that a Writ of Mandamus was sought against the respondents, who were private financial entities, and neither of them were 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, the Court ruled that they were not susceptible to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.