Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: September 5 To September 10, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 317 - 323] Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317 Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318 Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319 Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320 Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321 Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 322 Pratap Prakash Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 323 Reports/Judgments Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A 'Person Or Institution' Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Uttam Energy Ltd. v. M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 317 The Bombay High Court ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act does not include the application required to be filed under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act before the High Court for seeking appointment of arbitrator(s). Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that a Commercial Court can never be regarded as a "person or institution" under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act, and that the term "any person or institution" would not include a Court exercising any judicial power. Caste Certificate - Ordinary Residence Of Applicant Cannot Be Determined In A Summary Enquiry: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 318 The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that the question of ordinary residence of a person for the purpose of verifying caste certificate cannot be determined without a Vigilance Cell inquiry and providing the person an opportunity to submit evidence. The court held that the question whether an applicant is ordinary resident of the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authority is a question of fact and has to be decided by granting the applicant necessary opportunity to prove it. The court further observed that Rule 14 of the 2012 Rules prohibits verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee when such caste certificate is issued to a migrant from another State. "A caste certificate issued to a claimant by an Authority other than one from the State of Maharashtra cannot be verified", the court stated. Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court Case title: Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Raghuram Hegde, Proprietor Creative Infotech Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 319 The Bombay High Court held that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied. Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the opposite party's website, which included an arbitration agreement, was sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause between them. [MP Mohan Delkar Suicide] Bombay High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator & 8 Others Case Title: Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 320 The Bombay High Court quashed FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other authorities for allegedly abetting suicide of Mohan Delkar, seven times Member of Parliament (MP) of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The court observed that to attract Section 120 (B) IPC, there must be positive material to show that the accused persons came together for hatching a conspiracy and effect was given to that conspiracy. There must a positive act for satisfying the word abetment in order to charge someone for abetment of suicide. However, the material in the FIR doesn't satisfy any of these requirements. [MPSC Exam] Judicial Intervention In Result Even At Interim Stage Of Proceedings Affects All Candidates: Bombay High Court Case Title: Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321 The Bombay High Court held that courts should refrain from interfering in results of examinations as judicial intervention affects all ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: September 5 To September 10, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags