Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 19 To March 25, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 148 - 158]Seawoods Estates Ltd. v. Mona Mohan And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 148Terezinha Martins David v. Miguel Guarda Rosario Martins and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 149National Textile Corporation Ltd vs. Elixir Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 150Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 151Mahadev Gaur Bishwas v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 152Suresh s/o Devidas Malche v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 153Anil G. Karkhanis v. Kirloskar Press and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 154Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 155State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Subhash Pawar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 156Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 157Ram Omprakash Patil v. Secretary, Government of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 158Reports/JudgmentsCentral Government Has Notified Rules: Bombay High Court Disposes Off Resident Welfare Associations Plea Against Society’s Dog Lovers Case Title: Seawoods Estates Ltd. v. Mona Mohan And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 148Observing that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 formulated by the Central Government notified on March 10, 2023 answers the question of feeding strays or community dogs inside a housing society “optimally”, the Bombay High Court disposed of a petition involving warring management of Seawoods Estate Limited and dog lovers from the society.According to the Rules, in case a dispute arises between the apartment owners and care givers, a 7-member Animal Welfare Committee would be formed and its decision would be final.“If this is the architecture of the Rules, then clearly there is no issue for us to decide. There is now legislative framework that occupies the field,” the bench said.Daughter Does Not Lose Right In Family Property Merely Because Dowry Was Paid At Her Marriage: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Terezinha Martins David v. Miguel Guarda Rosario Martins and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 149The Goa bench of Bombay High Court held that daughter’s right to family property does not extinguish merely because she was provided dowry at her marriage.Justice MS Sonak quashed a Transfer Deed made by brothers transferring family property without the consent of the appellant sister.Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Has No Jurisdiction To Conduct Arbitration Dispute Arising Under A Works Contract: Bombay High CourtCase Title: National Textile Corporation Ltd vs. Elixir Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 150The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Facilitation Council by invoking statutory arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), while holding that the Council could not have exercised jurisdiction to conduct arbitration in a dispute arising under a works contract.The bench of Justice Manish Pitale remarked that a works contract is not amenable to the provisions of the MSMED Act, and therefore the MSMED Act could not have been invoked by the claimant/ award holder. The Court concluded that the lack of jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council to conduct the arbitral proceedings rendered the arbitral award patently illegal.Bombay High Court Quashes Order Against Raj Thackarey, Asks Sessions Court To Decide Discharge Afresh In 2008 Agitation CaseCase Title: Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 151 The Bombay High Court quashed an order passed against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) president Raj Thackeray refusing to discharge him from a 2008 “unlawful assembly case” regarding agitations seeking jobs for Maharashtrians in the Railway.Justice Amit Borkar remanded the matter back to the Sessions court of Islampur directing it to decide the revision application afresh as the order lacked proper reasoning.3.5 Yrs Old Girl Not Introduced To Own Organs, Not Expected To Give Exact Description Of Private Parts, Identify Accused From Photo: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mahadev Gaur Bishwas v. State of Maharashtra & AnrCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 152Observing that a three-year-old child cannot be expected to give an exact description of her private parts or identify the accused based on a photograph, the Bombay High Court upheld the 10 -year sentence of the child’s neighbour under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).Justice Bharati Dangre upheld the neighbour’s conviction by a Special Court for offences punishable u/s. 376(2) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for raping the victim girl by penetrating his finger into the vagina. “A little girl of 3 ½ years who is not even introduced to her own organs, cannot be expected to give exact description of her private parts, but in her statement recorded u/s.164, she has categorically stated that XXXX’s father had touched her at the toilet place by his nails,” the judge observedConviction Cannot Be Based Only On DNA...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 19 To March 25, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags