Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29 To February 5, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 61 - 75]Gajanan v. Surekha 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 61Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh v. Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 62Uttam Anna Lande v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 63Hirabai Dattatray Mankar v. Dodke Associates through its Partner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 64Rahul Giridhar Pathade v. Collector of Nasik, State Excise Department and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 65Milind Shantilal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 66Shaikh Shaukat S/O Majit @ Majid Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 67M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 68M/s. Nanak Construction v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 69Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 70Kirvan Vendsol Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 71X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 72Rekha @ Vidhila Faldessai v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 73Vaibhav Padmakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 74Gaurav s/o Santoshkumar Dhaye v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 75Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To Woman Who Had Accepted Alimony Under 'Customary Divorce'Case Title: Gajanan v. SurekhaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 61Observing that a person's approaching the civil court for divorce itself shows that customary divorce does not exist in his caste, the Bombay High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).Justice S. G. Mehare, in the husband’s challenge to the award, held that:“For claiming any customary right, the parties claiming such right are bound to prove that the customs of their caste or race still exist and the community at large is regularly observing such customs. Since the applicant approached the Civil Court for divorce, it can safely be held that the customary divorce was not in existence in their caste. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim that after the customary divorce, the domestic relationship ceased, and the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs under D.V. Act.”Opportunity To Examine Vital Witness Cannot Be Denied Only Due To Failure To Show Reason For Omitting Name In Witness List: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh v. Vinod Shobhraj GajariaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 62The Bombay High Court held that failure to show reason for not including witness names in the witness list under Order XVI Rule 1(1) of CPC alone cannot be a reason to disallow the plaintiff from examining witnesses who are vital for determining the dispute.Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding trial court’s order allowing the plaintiff to examine two witnesses held, “Court would not deny them the opportunity by showing technical rules of procedure, drafted for advancing the cause of justice.”Not Extinguishing Fire Shows Knowledge And Intention To Cause Death: Bombay High Court Upholds Man’s Murder Conviction For Killing WifeCase Title: Uttam Anna Lande v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 63The Bombay High Court upheld the murder conviction of a man observing that he did not try to extinguish the fire showing that he had the intention to murder his wife.A division bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice R. N. Laddha held –“the act of the accused of pouring the kerosene oil on the person of the deceased, setting her ablaze and not extinguishing the fire would speak entirely against him and demonstrates the intention and knowledge on the part of the Appellant. The deceased was the wife of the Appellant and was alone in the house. The Appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation and acted cruelly. Even if the incident in question was not premeditated and sudden, the manner of retaliation is disproportionate”.Prayers For Partition & Separate Possession Can't Be Granted In Execution Proceedings: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hirabai Dattatray Mankar v. Dodke Associates through its PartnerCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 64The Bombay High Court refused to reopen closed execution proceedings for petitioners who had not pursued their objections for 14 years and challenged the executing court's order two years after it was passed. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said that the prayers of the petitioners for partition and separate possession in the objection applications are of the nature of a fresh suit and cannot be granted in execution proceedings. Such prayers can always be sought by the Petitioners by filing a separate suit.No Locus Standi: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹10K Cost On Nasik Resident For Challenging Permission For Opening Of Country Liquor Bar In Residential AreaCase Title: Rahul Giridhar Pathade v. Collector of Nasik, State Excise Department and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 65The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs. 10,000/- cost on a petitioner who had objected to opening of a...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29 To February 5, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags