Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 474 – 489] 1. Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 474 2. Niketan Dilip Paldhe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 475 3. Mohammad Azad Alam Diljad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 476 4. Ajitkumar S/o Motilal Kasliwal v. Central Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 477 5. Amarnath Madhukar Havshett v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 478 6. Shri Arunkumar s/o Dwarklal Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 479 7. M/s Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. M/s Commercial Auto Products Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 480 8. M/s. Mehra & Company v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 481 9. Union of India v. Reena D/o Kishor Kharwade 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 482 10. State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Smt. ABC and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 483 11. Suresh Madhukar Shendre v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 484 12. Prakash C. Sheth v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 485 13. National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 486 14. State of Maharashtra v. Arya Pujari 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 487 15. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trigent Software Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 488 16. State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Bharat Constructions 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 489 Reports/Judgments 1. Bombay High Court Reduces Sentence of POCSO Convict Citing Good Behaviour In Jail; Upholds Conviction Due To DNA And Medical Evidence Case Title: Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 474 Justice Sarang V. Kotwal, while dealing with an appeal against POCSO conviction, observed that the appellant, as a convict and as an undertrial prisoner prior to that, had already been in jail for longer than the minimum sentence under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at the time of the offence and his conduct in the jail is satisfactory. The court upheld the conviction observing that the DNA report is one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence and cannot be overlooked. 2. [S.311 CrPC] Statement Made In Cross-Examination Alone Cannot Be Basis To Recall Witnesses: Bombay High Court Case Title: Niketan Dilip Paldhe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 475 The Bombay High Court held that a suggestion put by an accused to the complainant during cross-examination doesn't create a right in the complainant's favour to seek his own re-examination under section 311 of the CrPC, especially after he was allowed to testify the first time using the same provision. Justice Amit Borkar therefore quashed a Magistrate's order allowing the complainant's application under section 311 of the CrPC to produce two invoices in a cheque bouncing case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 3. Pushed Out Of Running Train Upon Sudden Quarrel, Not Attempt To Murder: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mohammad Azad Alam Diljad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 476 The Bombay High Court set aside a 22-year-old man's attempt to murder conviction observing that there was no premeditation as he pushed the victim from a running train in a sudden quarrel. The court convicted him under section 308 of the IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) instead. The court considered the mitigating factors such as young age and recent marriage of the appellant and reduced the sentence to the period he had already suffered. 4. "Attempt To Defraud The Bank": Bombay HC Upholds Dismissal Of Employee For Claiming Reimbursement Through Fake Medical Bills Case Title: Ajitkumar S/o Motilal Kasliwal v. Central Bank of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 477 The Bombay High Court upheld a peon's dismissal from Central Bank of India for claiming and receiving over 6 lakhs as reimbursement for medical bills from a non-operational medical shop, observing that dismissal is proportionate punishment for his attempt to defraud the bank. The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute labour court's finding that the licence of the concerned medical shop was surrendered in 2010 but he kept on producing bills from that shop up to August 2013. The court did not accept the petitioner's defence that the shop was home delivering medicine to him as there was no evidence to that effect. 5. Bombay HC Restrains State From Issuing Appointment Orders To Engineers Selected Under EWS Quota Until Final Decision On SEBC Reservation Case Title: Amarnath Madhukar Havshett v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 478 The Bombay High Court has restrained the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags