Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 407 – 417] 1. Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407 2. Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408 3. Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409 4. Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410 5. Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda Versus State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411 6. Kusum Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State Minister for Co-operation, Department of Co-operation and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 412 7. Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413 8. Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 414 9. Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415 10. Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416 11. Shardul Shamprasad Dev v. Manjiri Shardul Dev 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 417 Reports/Judgments 1. 'Paraplegia Impacts Marital Life, Deprives Children Of Love': Bombay HC Grants Over ₹1 Crore Compensation To Road Accident Victim Case Title: Yogesh Subhash Panchal v. Mohd. Hussain Malik and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 407 The Bombay High Court held that nit-picking and awarding meagre amounts of compensation to accident victims, unmindful of their deep mental and emotional scars, is an affront of the injured victim while awarding compensation of more than Rs 1 crore to a claimant, who sustained multiple injuries in a road accident in 2004. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated that there is no embargo in awarding compensation more than that claimed by the Claimant. It is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award 'just compensation', even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. Court observed that paraplegia not only impairs the physical, mental, social and financial wellbeing of a married victim but also impacts the lives of his spouse who inevitably becomes main caregiver, children and infirm parents. 2. Letter To Competent Authority Under Maha Industrial Development Act Sufficient to Refer Compensation Enhancement Claim For Land Acquisition: Bombay High Court Case title – Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408 The Bombay High Court held that written applications for enhancement of compensation for land acquisition are sufficient to prove that appellants were seeking enhancement. Justice S. G. Dige of the Aurangabad bench further observed that Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) requires written application for reference to court for enhancement of compensation, but it does not prescribe a form of petition. 3. Labelling Husband As 'Alcoholic', 'Womaniser' Without Substance Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court Case title – Nalini Nagnath Uphalkar v. Nagnath Mahadev Uphalkar, Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 409 The Bombay High Court held that a wife making unsubstantiated allegations against her husband in a court labelling him as an 'alcoholic' and a 'womanizer' amounts to cruelty. A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/wife challenging family court's decision to grant divorce decree to her husband observing that no evidence was produced by the wife to prove her allegations. 4. Execution Of Agreement, In Bid Document As Condition Precedent; Failure To Execute, Not A Concluded Contract: Bombay High Court Case title: Kalpataru Limited versus Middle Class Friends Co-operative Housing Society Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 410 The Bombay High Court ruled that where reference to a future contract is made in the tender documents and in the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to a successful bidder, in such terms which shows that the parties do not intend to be bound until the said contract is signed between them, there is no concluded contract between them which can be specifically enforced. The Division Bench of Justices R.D. Dhanuka and Kamal Khata added that the terms and conditions of the contract, which were not agreed by and between the parties, cannot be drafted by the Court or the arbitrator for incorporating them in the agreement. The Court ruled that it cannot re-write a contract or suggest any conditions of a contract to be incorporated, by passing an order against the parties. 5. Deadly Assault On Sleeping Man After A Fight Not Culpable Homicide But Murder: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mittu @ Mithu Bholi Pareda Versus State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 411 The Bombay High Court held that killing a person in his sleep hours after a fight would be a case of murder punishable under section 302 of the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags