Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 26 To October 2, 2022

Nominal Index 1. Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352 2. Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353 3. M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354 4. Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355 5. Ajaz Mohammad Shaf Khan v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 356 6. Aruna Mohanbabu Jaiswal and Anr. v. The Collector, State Excise Department, Amravati 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 357 7. Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358 8. Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359 9. Chetan Vyas v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 360 10. Pawan Shamsundar Sarda and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 361 11. All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362 12. High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363 13. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 364 14. Faiyyaz Mullaji v. Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 365 15. Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366 16. Rashmi Taylor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 367 17. Shailesh Shah, Legal Heir of Late Shri Ramniklal Harilal Shah v. The Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 368 18. M/s. Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 369 Reports/Judgments 1. Half of Life Imprisonment Is 10 Years for POCSO Offences: Bombay High Court Case Title: Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 352 The Bombay High Court sentenced a convict to one half of life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, who will have to undergo a sentence of 10-years. Justice Sarang Kotwal held that since life imprisonment was not defined under the POCSO Act, the definition of life imprisonment under section 57 of the Indian Penal Code would apply. The section provides that for calculating a fraction or part of an entire sentence, life imprisonment would be equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. "Thus, half of life imprisonment in such cases would mean imprisonment for ten years," Justice Kotwal observed while disposing off the petition. 2. State's Obligation To Protect Citizens From Wild Animal Attacks, Any Injury Caused Is Govt's Failure: Bombay High Court Case Title: Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 353 Stating that while it is the duty of the State government to protect wild animals and not allow them wander outside the restricted zone, the Bombay High Court Monday said it is also obligatory upon the state to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. A division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse ruled that it is a twin obligation of the State Government to protect wild animals and the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. "If any wild animal causes injury to any person, this in fact is a failure of the State Government to protect right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the court held. 3. Reference Made Under MSMED Act; District Court Has Power To Extend Mandate Or Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A Of A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case title: M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited versus M/s. Artcad Systems Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 354 The Bombay High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which enables the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator or substitute the Arbitrator, would be applicable to the reference made under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The Single Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that since there is no provision under the MSMED Act to extend the mandate of the arbitrator or substitute the arbitrator, hence, if the provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act are made inapplicable to the reference made under the MSMED Act, it would render the arbitral scheme under the MSMED Act otiose. 4. Daughter Making Monetary Demand From Father Not Meant To Abet His Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Case title: Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355 The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of abetting her father's suicide, observing that it is unlikely that she demanded money from him...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 26 To October 2, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags