Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 462 – 473] 1. JSW Steel Limited v. Bellary Oxygen Company Private Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 462 2. Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 463 3. Monic Sunit Ujjain v. Sanchu M. Menon and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 464 4. Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465 5. M/s. Samiksha Construction Company v. Ambernath Municipal Council and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 466 6. Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani & Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 467 7. Mohd. Sagir Bashir Chauhan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Region, Nagpur 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 468 8. Dimple Sunil Warthe v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 469 9. Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited v. Partha S/o. Sarathy Sarkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 470 10. Raviraj Rajendra Patil v. Gram Panchayat Bachni 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 471 11. Dr. Harish Shetty v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 472 12. Mangesh s/o Deorao Kannake v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 473Reports/Judgments 1. Arbitration Clause In An Agreement Can't Be Invoked For Another Agreement, Operating Independently: Bombay High Court Case Title: JSW Steel Limited v. Bellary Oxygen Company Private Limited & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 462 The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere reference to an Agreement containing an arbitration clause, in a subsequent Agreement, will not bring about a consequence envisaged under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), to the effect that the arbitration agreement would be incorporated into the subsequent Agreement. The Court added that the reference contemplated under Section 7(5) of the A&C Act, should be such so as to make the arbitration clause part of the contract. The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni observed that the parties had categorically confined the applicability of the arbitration agreement only to the Agreement containing the arbitration clause, and that they had consciously not provided for any arbitration agreement in the subsequent Agreement. 2. Should Have Declared Conflict of Interest under Section 38(2) of Mumbai Cricket Association's Constitution: Bombay HC Upholds Former U-19 India Captain's Suspension From Cricket For A Year Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Powar v. Mumbai Cricket Association Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 463 The Bombay High Court upheld former Ranji player and former captain of under-19 Indian team Kiran Powar's removal from the Mumbai Cricket Association's Apex Council, and also upheld the bar on him from playing cricket for a year. The division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha that Powar was appointed to the Apex Council in October 2019. However, he failed to declare that his brother was appointed as a coach for MCA between 2017-18 and that his (brother's) name was under consideration. The disclosure should've been made under section 38(2) of MCA's constitution, the order states. Under section 38(1)(v) any person who occupies a position of influence must disclose where a friend, relative or close affiliate is in the zone of consideration. 3. Offence U/S138 NI Act Not Attracted If The Cheque Is Given As Security for a Loan From Unlicensed Money Lender: Bombay High Court Case Title: Monic Sunit Ujjain v. Sanchu M. Menon and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 464 The Bombay High Court rejected a criminal revision application in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act observing that section 138 cannot be attracted if the cheque is given as security for a loan from a unlicensed money lender. "In cases of money lending business without license, the provisions under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted", Justice Prakash Naik observed in his order. 4. Land Acquisition: Evidence produced before reference court prior to HC remanding the case back should be considered if no new evidence is produced after remand Case Title: Bhujanga s/o Sarangdhar Sarkate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 465 The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court awarded a farmer additional monetary compensation for his mango trees and well in a land acquisition case. The court also enhanced the overall compensation granted by the reference court. While hearing the case for the first time, the reference court had considered the location as well as the trees and the well and enhanced the compensation awarded by the acquisition officer. However, after hearing the matter for the second time, it discarded the evidence given the first time around and reduced the compensation. It also did not award compensation for the well and trees. The court...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags