Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 22 - August 28, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 302-309] Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul Phadtare; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302 National Highways Authority of India versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303 MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304 Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305 Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306 Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare Versus The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307 BXIN Office Parks India Pvt. Ltd. versus Kailasa Urja Pvt. Ltd.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 308 Anand I Power Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors.; Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 3091. Law Considers Women As 'Weaker Section' Of Society Requiring More Protection: Bombay High Court While Transferring Matrimonial Case Case Title: Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul PhadtareCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302The Bombay High Court last week transferred a matrimonial case observing that law considers women as belonging to weaker section of society and her inconvenience needs to be prioritized.The court observed, "Even though this reason may be of some importance, the fact that the Applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.171 of 2022 is a lady, her inconvenience needs to be given more priority because the law considers woman as class belonging to weaker section of society and needs more protection." 2. Mere Erroneous Application Of Law; Award Need Not Be Set Aside: Bombay High Court Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303The Bombay High Court has reiterated that when the court is convinced that the Arbitrator has erred only on specific issues and that the arbitral award is otherwise sustainable, the court is not mandatorily required to set aside the entire award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that though the arbitral award granting interest to land owners on enhanced compensation from the date of the notification for acquisition, and not from the date of taking possession, is contrary to the mandate of Section 3H (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA); however, it constituted a mere erroneous application of the law and hence, the award cannot be said aside on the said ground.3. Sea Link Toll Collection: Bombay HC Deprecates Trend Of Ineligible Bidders Approaching Court, Upholds Disqualification Of MEP Infra Case title – MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304The Bombay High Court recently observed that it has become a trend for 'ineligible' bidders of contracts to try and arouse the court's conscience claiming their bids were more financially viable for the State. However, such financial bids shouldn't even be considered and must be rejected outright if the company doesn't meet the technical criteria for the contract. "Drawing from our judicial experience, we may unhesitatingly refer to a common trend of ineligible bidders offering a lower/higher bid than the eligible bidders and then raising a plea of how the "State" would have benefited financially if its bid were accepted to arouse judicial conscience to prevent unnecessary drainage from the public exchequer. Unmeritorious pleas such as these ought not to detain us for a moment and deserve outright rejection, which we hereby do," the court observed. 4. Bombay High Court Directs Demolition Over 100-Year-Old Dilapidated Widows Hostel Building In Mumbai Case title – Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Bombay High Court has upheld the demolition order of an over 100-year-old dilapidated C-1 category building in Mumbai that was home to widows from the Parsi community.The court ruled that the seven tests to check the building's strength under BMC's 2018 guidelines were not mandatory for load bearing structures like the present one and the guidelines would apply only to cement concrete (RCC) structures. 5. [S.14 SARFAESI Act] Jurisdiction Of DM Purely Ministerial In Nature; Not Empowered To Hear Borrower/ Third Parties: Bombay High Court Case title – Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306Observing that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate (DM) is limited only to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, the Bombay High Court held that the DM isn't empowered to hear the borrower or third parties while deciding application filed by secured creditor.6. Touching Child's Private Parts With Sexual Intent Sufficient To Attract POCSO Act, Absence Of...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 22 - August 28, 2022

Shrutika Pandey

Tags