Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 390 – 406] 1. Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390 2. Yash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 391 3. Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392 4. ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 393 5. Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigating Agency and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 394 6. Chandrakant Narayan Salvi v. Chandrakant Krushna Kumbhar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 395 7. Bharat Bhusan v. The Chairman, Joint Seat Allocation Authority and Ors. with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 396 8. Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 397 9. Mandar Pramod Vichare v. Thane Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 398 10. Dashrath Arjun Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 399 11. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 400 12. Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 401 13. Shivaji Nagar Rahivashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 402 14. Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 403 15. Nayana Premji Savala v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404 16. Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 405 17. Narendra S/o Chuhadram Sharma v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 406 Reports/Judgments 1. Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Bombay High Court Case Title: Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390 The Bombay High Court held that a passenger who is forced to cross the railway tracks due to absence of a foot over bridge and gets hit by a train cannot be called negligent and his dependents would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench referred to the definition of 'passenger' under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and observed that the definition does not suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger after alighting from the train and meeting with an accident. The court noted that the Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept. 2. Hazardous To Force Parties To Litigate Despite Compromise In Domestic Violence Cases U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Yash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 391 The Bombay High Court observed that it would be "hazardous" to force a couple to litigate when they want to live happily while underscoring the importance of quashing domestic violence cases once parties arrive at a settlement, even though they are categorized as non-compoundable offence. A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh Patil noted that refusing to quash disputes despite amicable settlements, would be a "dis-service to the society for the protection of which the courts exits." 3. Order I Rule 10 CPC | Theory Of Dominus Litis Can't Be Overstretched To Exclude Necessary Parties From Suit: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in) Case title: Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392 The Bombay High Court held that the trial court has "full power" under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to add a party as defendant if necessary to decide a suit, even if the plaintiff does not choose to implead said party. The court said that there is no doubt that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and it is his choice to seek an injunction only against the person see chooses. However, the powers of the trial court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code are very wide and extensive. The court can implead any party at any stage even without an application if it thinks that their presence is necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the suit. 4. Marry Girlfriend You Abandoned Within A Year: Bombay High Court's Bail Condition For Rape Accused Case title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 393 The Bombay High court granted bail to a man accused of raping a woman and abandoning her, on the condition that he would marry her within a year. Justice Bharti Dangre observed that the prosecutrix and accused were in a consensual relationship, and the man refused to marry her when she was six months pregnant. The accused submitted before the court that he and his family members were ready to solemnize the marriage and accept the paternity of the child. However, the court was told, the prosecutrix is now untraceable as she was charged with abandoning the child. "In the above circumstances, I deem it...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags