Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXSanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios & Ors Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors vs Tata Motors Limited Basant Singh and Ors. v. Autar Kaur and Ors. Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra M/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter Ingram Micro INC. vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) ROUND UP 1. Discretion Of Any Authority Cannot Be An Arbitrary Or Unregulated; To Be Exercised Fairly: Bombay High Court Case Title: Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 69 The Bombay High Court recently considered the workings of the doctrine of pleasure, whereby authorities have a right to act as per their discretion. A bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and S.G. Dige regarded that the doctrine of pleasure does not unable an authority to be arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed as a part time Chairman of Aurangabad Housing and Development Board by the State Government under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which was later cancelled. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner submitted that as per section 7 of the said Act, his term was for three years and that powers of the State Government to remove President, Vice-President or any non-official member from his office prior to the stipulated period of three years were not unfettered and the State Government, while exercising its powers, had to notify the reasons. The bench observed that no reason had been set out by the State Government for removal of petitioner, when the admitted position was that his removal was on account of Doctrine of Pleasure. 2. Principal Had No Actual Control Over Children, Can't Be Prosecuted For Cruelty Under JJ Act If Teacher Beat Them Up: Bombay High Court Case Title: Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 70 The headmaster of a school cannot be prosecuted for cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for a teacher's actions merely because he heads the institution in the absence of specific allegations of assault, connivance or wilful neglect on his part, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held. Justice Avinash Gharote allowed the headmaster's writ petition and discharged him of offences under Section 75 of the JJ Act (punishment for cruelty to child). The court rejected the prosecution's contention that the headmaster was liable because he was the head of the institution and thus had overall control over the children wherein a dance teacher had beaten a child with an iron rod during practice, causing injuries. 3. Bombay Asks Cab Aggregators Like Ola & Uber To Apply For Licenses Under New Motor Vehicle Rules By March 16 Case Title: Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 71 In a sign of accountability for all cab aggregators in Maharashtra like Uber India and Ola, the Bombay High Court directed them to apply for new licences from the State Government by March 16, 2022, based on rules framed by the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The Central Government's rules – Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines 2020 – will be applicable till the State's rules come into effect based on a 2019 amendment to the MV Act. "If rejected (application and appeal), such applying aggregator shall not be permitted to carry on further activities in the state of Maharashtra," a division bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed. 4. Once Parties Acknowledge Existence Of Arbitration Clause, Court Can Appoint Arbitrator Even If Stamp Duty Is Insufficiently Paid: Bombay High Court Case Title: Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 72 The Bombay High Court recently observed that once the parties have acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, insufficiency of stamps cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators. Justice AK Menon observed, "Arbitration is seen as a speedy remedy but if applicants and respondents who may have counter-claims, have to await the fate of adjudication of documents for stamping and conclusion of the statutory challenge, the purpose of arbitration may be defeated. In my view, once parties are ad-idem on the fact that they have signed the writing containing an arbitration clause, the parties having acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 and the High Court, in my ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags