Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 - June 19, 2022

Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 211 - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 220] Latabai vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 211 Anand Singh vs The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 212 Choice Developers vs Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 213 Narayan vs Mrs. Sangita and anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 State of Maharashtra vs Adarsh Waterparks Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 215 Jar Productions Private Limited vs The Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 216 Ravi Goenka vs The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 217 Harmesh Singh Chadha @ Jimmy vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 218 Esrar Nazrul Ahemad Versus State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 219 Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 220 Judgments/Orders 1. Bombay High Court Rejects Shiv Sena MLA's Challenge To Invalidation Of Her Scheduled Tribe Certificate Case Title – Latabai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 211 The Bombay High Court dismissed Shiv Sena MLA Latabai Sonawane's plea challenging a decision of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Certificate Committee that had dismissed her claim of belonging to the Tokre Koli, an ST community. A division bench observed that "the petitioner's father's caste in his birth register is shown as "Koli". It was a pre-Independence entry. The revenue record in the name of her grandfather shows his caste as "Hindu". "Hindu" is not a caste. Her sisters' caste in the school leaving certificates is also not shown as "Tokre Koli". The petitioner has no case that she, her sisters, father or grandfather has ever attempted to correct in their school record." 2. Victim May Seek Enhancement Of Accused' Sentence By Filing Revision Application: Bombay High Court Case Title - Anand Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, with connected matters Citation –2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 212 A victim can seek enhancement of her/ his offender's jail time (sentence) only through a revision application and not by filing an appeal against the trial court's judgement, the Bombay High Court held. While a victim's appeal against sentence may not be maintainable under section 372 of the CrPC, a revision application under section 401 of the CrPC for the same relief would survive. Such an application is also recognised under Rule 2(II)(a) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the court said. The revision would go before a division bench. 3. Court Can Pass An Order Of Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Against A Third Party: Reiterates Bombay High Court Case Title: Choice Developers versus Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 213 The Bombay High Court reiterated that the Court is free to pass an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to grant interim measures of protection against a third party who is impleaded in the petition filed under Section 9. 4. [No Fault Principle] Employee Can Claim Compensation Both U/S 140 Motor Vehicle Act & U/S 3 Of Workmen's Compensation Act: Bombay High Court Case Title : Narayan v Mrs. Sangita and anr Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 The Bombay HC recently dealt with a case wherein a truck driver, who was the employee of the owner of the truck met with a vehicular accident. As he had initiated compensation proceedings under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("M.V. Act"), his claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act 1923) ("W.C. Act") was not entertained by the commissioner. The court held that the compensation granted under chapter X of the M.V. Act does not forfeit the right of the employee to claim the compensation under section 3 of the 1923 Act as provided under Section 167 of the M.V. Act. 5. "Fraud On Court": Bombay HC Sets Aside Consent Decree Granting Development Rights For 6K Acres Land In Kanjurmarg Village To Private Firm Case Title - State of Maharashtra vs Adarsh Waterparks Pvt Ltd Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 215 The Bombay High Court granted relief to the Maharashtra government and set aside a consent decree by which a private firm obtained development rights, in October 2020, for over 6,000 acre of land in Kanjurmarg village, including the 102-acre land designated for a Metro car shed. "There was a larger responsibility cast on the advocates to disclosed all the facts...Suppression of all these facts has led the court pass the order. Thus, undeniably fraud of a huge proportion has been played by suppressing the claims of various other parties. The consent decree is a product of the fraud." 6. Services Rendered Abroad Amounts to Export Of Services, No GST Applicable: Bombay High Court Case Title: Jar Productions...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 - June 19, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags