Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Nominal Index Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200 Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201 D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202 Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203 Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204 Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 205 Nawab Malik vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 206 Gautam Kamlakar Pardeshi and anr v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 207 Seema Jagdish Patil v The National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 208D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 209Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 210 Judgments/Orders 1. Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Assault FIR Under POCSO Act As Victim (Now A Major) & Accused To Marry Case Title – Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200 The Bombay High court quashed an FIR under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for penetrative sexual assault, as the victim girl (now a major) said that she and the accused were allegedly in love and are now to be married. The court observed it was "inclined to accept the request for quashing the FIR, only by considering their future. If the prosecution still remains, it will come in their peaceful life." 2. [SC/ST Act] Can't Seek "Extra-Judicial Remedies" To Pressurize Prosecution: Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Principal After Teacher Puts Arrest Banner Case Title : Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201 The Bombay High Court pulled up the complainant teacher for putting up banners seeking the principal's arrest, while granting anticipatory bail to the principal accused of hurling casteist remarks, a punishable offence under the SC/ST Act, at an "under-performing" teacher. "Once the complaint is lodged, FIR registered, the publication of the banner is uncalled for. Complainant cannot seek extra judicial remedies to pressurize the prosecution. Prosecution will carry out the investigation on the basis of cogent material on record and its investigation process. Parties should desist from such acts and allow the prosecution to do its duty in accordance with law." 3. A Reference To Arbitration Can Be Declined By The Court If The Dispute Is A Deadwood: Bombay High Court Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202 The Bombay High Court held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood. The Single Bench reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is extremely limited and that the arbitrability of the dispute is required to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. 4. Retaining Possession Post Land Acquisition Is Trespass: High Court Upholds Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants From Mumbai International Airport Case Title : Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203 The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction orders passed against a group of unauthorized occupants, claiming tenancy rights on the premises of Mumbai International Airport. A Single bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that the land in question was acquired by the State in 1947 and hence, even if the owner himself tries to retain possession thereof, he will become a trespasser. Reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others. 4. DRT Not Empowered In Law To Restrain A Debtor's Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad: Bombay High Court Case Title: Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204 The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot restrain a citizen from travelling abroad since there is no specific or implied provision empowering it under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held. The bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Amit Borkar observed that a citizen's right to travel abroad forms part of "personal liberty" defined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, to restrain a person from travelling abroad, it was necessary to have such a provision under the Act. "The State has not made any law or provision in the said Act seeking to deprive or regulate the right of a person to...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags