Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

Nominal IndexGaurav Suresh Tingre v Priyanka Gaurav Tingre. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 144 Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v The State of Maharashtra and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 145 Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik and Ors. versus Anil s/o Hariram Malewar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 146 Akanksha Babasaheb Shinde v State of Maharashtra and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 147 Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148 Akshay @ Vikas Ramesh Chavan vs Kailas Vitthalrao Shinde and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 149 Barun Kumar and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., and connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 150 Vijay Anandrao Moghe and ors v The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 151 Mayur Vasant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 152 Dipak Kalicharan Kanojiya v. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 153 P Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 154 Atul Gorakhnath Ambale Versus The State of Maharashtra. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 155 State of Goa vs Tarun Tejpal. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 156 Chetan Iron LLP v. NRC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 157 ROUND-UP 1. Non-Custodial Parent Can't Be Deprived Of Right To Spend Quality Time & Enjoy Company Of Children: Bombay High Court Case Title: Gaurav Suresh Tingre v Priyanka Gaurav Tingre Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 144 The Bombay High Court observed that non-custodial parent cannot be deprived of his right to spend quality time and enjoy the company of the children. Moreover, the children also have right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai stated, "the children also have right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents. This is essential for personal development and overall well-being of the children." The Single Judge permitted the Petitioner-father to four days' access to the children and referred the matter for mediation so that the parties may arrive at an amicable settlement. 2. Number Of Students In Govt Aided Schools Inflated To Divert Public Money: Bombay HC Seeks Action Against Culprits, Appoints Committee To Curb Malpractices Case Title: Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra v The State of Maharashtra and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 145 The Bombay High court recently constituted a committee to curb alleged malpractices in the Maharashtra Education Department while asking the government to continue its belated efforts to remedy the situation by recovering monies. A bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Sanjay Mehare appointed a three-member committee on the issue of alleged practice of showing inflated student strength so as to appoint more teachers in aided and private schools. The petitioner alleged that the numbers of students shown to have been admitted by various schools are inflated by large number of schools in connivance with some of the officers of the State Government who are empowered to grant sanction for grant-in-aid and other facilities to these schools for imparting education to these students resulting in fraudulent diversion of crores of rupees of public money. 3. Court Lacking Jurisdiction To Appoint An Arbitrator, Cannot Do So Based No Objection By The Opposite Party: Bombay High Court Case Title: Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik and Ors. versus Anil s/o Hariram Malewar and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 146 The Bombay High Court ruled that a Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator when the only proceeding before it is an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, solely on the ground that the opposite party has not objected to the appointment of an Arbitrator. A single bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that even if an arbitration clause exists, appointment of an Arbitrator can only take place in accordance with the law. The Court added that merely because no objection is endorsed by the opposite party, a Court will not be foisted with the jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator. 4. Bombay High Court Orders Issuance Of Provisional Caste Certificate For Higher Studies While Student's Uncle's Caste Certificate Is Under The Scanner Case Title: Akanksha Babasaheb Shinde v State of Maharashtra and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 147 The Bombay High court held that till final withdrawal of caste certificate of Petitioner's uncle by the competent authority, she is entitled to benefits sought for by relying upon the said Certificate. A bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and G.A. Sanap noted that even though there are genuine concerns regarding the validity of the Petitioner's uncle's caste certificate and the same is under reconsideration, yet until it not withdrawn, the Petitioner is entitled to benefits accruing from it. 5. Dept. To Decide Whether...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags