Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 8 to November 13, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 428 – 435] 1. Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428 2. Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429 3. 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430 4. Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431 5. H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432 6. Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 433 7. Maharashtra State Wrestling Association v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 434 8. Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 435 Reports/Judgments 1. Biker Not Liable For Contributory Negligence If Parking Lights Of Stationary Vehicle Against Which He Dashed At Night Were Off: Bombay HC Case Title: Mohini Mohanrao Salunke and Ors. v. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 428 The Bombay High Court Aurangabad bench held that a motorcycle rider cannot be held even partially responsible for ramming into a stationary tempo under the Motor Vehicle's Act if the offending vehicle's parking lights were off. Justice SG Dige observed, "When there is specific rule in respect of taking precautions by stationary vehicle, if such precautions are not taken by the driver/owner of stationary vehicle then liability cannot be shifted on motorcycle rider." 2. Wife Who Filed Three Criminal Cases Against Husband Fully Aware Of Legal Procedure, Cannot Claim Ignorance: Bombay HC Upholds Divorce Case Title: Rohini Raju Khamkar v. Raju Ranba Khamkar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 429 The Bombay High Court refused to set aside a divorce decree granted by the Family Court owing to the wife's non-appearance observing that a woman who filed three criminal cases against her husband would be fully aware of the legal procedure. A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh rejected the wife's claim that she was illiterate and a victim of wrong legal advice, moreover that it was the court's duty to secure her presence. "The Appellant had knowledge of the legal procedure, having filed three criminal cases," the bench observed. 3. Bombay HC Shocked Over Registration Of FIR Against 9-Yr-Old For Accidentally Hitting Lady With Bicycle, Orders Compensation Case Title: 'AK' v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 430 The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered by police against a 9-year-old child for accidentally hitting a lady while riding a bicycle despite the exception provided in section 83 of the IPC. "The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence", the bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S. M. Modak stated in its order. "Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e., of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9-year-old boy", the court said and awarded cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner. 4. Suppression Of Material Facts Ground To Refuse Temporary Injunction: Bombay High Court Case Title: Umaji s/o Satwaji Shep (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Gulam Mohmood s/o Gulam Dastgir (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 431 The Bombay High Court recently held that a temporary injunction can be granted only if the applicant approaches the court without any suppression of material facts and reiterated that such an injunction can be granted only if a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to the person seeking the injunction is established. Justice Sandeep Kumar C. More of the Aurangabad bench set aside a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit land in a property dispute as the respondents had suppressed prior litigation related to the dispute from the court. The court referred to various judgements in which Supreme Court observed that discretion of the lower court should not be interfered with in an appeal. The court stated, "all these observations will be applicable to the party who has come with clean hands before the court. It is a principle of law that who seeks equity, must do the same." 5. [NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity Contraband: Bombay High Court Case Title: H. S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 432 The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the combined weight of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) drug and the blotting paper carrying it is...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 8 to November 13, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags