Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Karishma Prakash vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247Syed Athar Ali and Another vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248 United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249 ABC vs XYZ 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250 ABC 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251 Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252 Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253 Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254Sathyanarayana Rani v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255ROUND-UP SSR Case: Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Celebrity Manager Karishma Prakash Case Title: Karishma Prakash vs UOI Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247The bench referred the following question to a larger bench for consideration. "Whether all offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable, irrespective of the punishment prescribed and irrespective of the fact that many offences do not even mandate imprisonment as a punishment?" The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karishma Prakash, actor Deepika Padukone's former manager, in the drugs connected to actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death. The court observed that her claims of using CBD oil (cannibus) because of the rashes that broke out due to stress after receiving summons in the case, did not appear truthful. Moreover, her custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate bank transactions, allegedly to procure drugs. S438 CrPC - Asking Accused To Mark Attendance At Police Station Not Mere Formality, It Is An Opportunity For IO To Investigate: Bombay High Court Case Title: Syed Athar Ali and Another v. The State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248 The Aurangabad Bench said that the condition of "police attendance" imposed by the court on an accused is not a mere formality and must be used by the police for proper investigation. "Granting the attendance is not for the purpose of mere attendance. It is an opportunity to the Investigation Officer to make investigation in pursuance of the allegations made against the accused," the court said while granting anticipatory bail. Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249 The Bombay High Court ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both. "Mother Can't Be Asked To Choose Between Child & Career": Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Go Abroad With DaughterCase title: ABC vs XYZ Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250 Observing that a woman cannot be asked to choose between her career and child the Bombay High Court directed her estranged husband to give his no objection for her to travel along with her daughter to Poland. "...the impugned order has failed to consider the important aspect of right to development, being vested in the petitioner as she cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career, the impugned order is quashed and set aside." Bombay High Court Directs National ART & Surrogacy Board To Decide Lawyer Couple's Plea For Transfer Of Cryo-Preserved Embryo Case Title: ABC Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251 The Bombay High Court has directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to expeditiously decide a Mumbai based couple's plea to transfer their cryo-preserved embryos from a hospital to an IVF clinic. This will be the first case to be decided by the National Board, counsel for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said. The lawyer-couple approached the High Court as the hospital was unwilling to transfer their embryos citing the new Act, and also due to the ambiguity around constitution and functioning of the National board and State boards under the ART and Surrogacy Act. Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court Case Title: Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252 The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award. The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, however, the amendment can only add some facts to the pending challenge but it cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags