Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

Nominal IndexVikramjeetsingh Dhall Proprietor of Dhall Foods and Beverages vs The Collector of Mumbai (City) & Ors; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 158 Nitin Navindas Hundiwala vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 160 Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 161 Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Corporation; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 162 Ganesh V/s. The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 163 Farhad Ginwalla & Anr. VS. Zenobia Poonawala & Ors with connected matters; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 164 Namdeo and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 165 Shemaroo Entertainment Limited vs. News Nation Network Private Limited; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 166 Muktabai and ors v State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 167 Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and anr. V The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 168 Malvika Rajnikant Mehta & Ors v. JESS Construction; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 169 ROUND-UP 1. Seized Foreign Liquor Emptied Into Nearest Nallah? Bombay HC Startled At Excise Procedure Of Destroying Contraband Case Title: Vikramjeetsingh Dhall Proprietor of Dhall Foods and Beverages vs The Collector of Mumbai (City) & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 158 Startled at a statement made by the Maharashtra State Excise Department that it will destroy seized foreign liquor by emptying it "into nearest available nallah (stream)," the Bombay High Court directed the officials to act prudently, cautiously and in accordance with law, while doing so. "We expect the Excise Department to act prudently, cautiously and in accordance with law. If this means that the Excise Department must get clearance from a Pollution Control Board then so be it. In its anxiety to destroy this liquor, the Excise Department must not endanger the larger public health," directed a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar earlier this month. 2. Boarding Crowded Mumbai Local Train A "Calculated Risk"; Not A "Criminal Act" : Bombay HC Awards Compensation To Injured Passenger Case Title: Nitin Navindas Hundiwala vs Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 160 The Bombay High Court observed that boarding a crowded train for a Mumbaikar was a 'calculated risk' not a 'criminal act' and directed the railways to pay over Rs 3 lakh compensation to a septuagenarian who slipped and fell right after boarding a crowded train in 2011. Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the Railways Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the senior citizen's claim and held that the incident would fall within the meaning of "untoward incident" under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act. "If in the daily chores, a passenger attempts to gain an entry, into an overcrowded train and is pushed by other passengers, resulting into his fall, there is no reason why such incident cannot fall within the ambit of 'untoward incident' and [it] wasn't an instance wherein the Railways were exempt from liability." 3. Bhima Koregaon Case : Bombay High Court Dismisses Gautam Navlakha's Plea To Shift Him To House Arrest Case Title: Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 161 The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by senior journalist Gautam Navlakha seeking to shifted out of Taloja Prison and be placed under house arrest, instead, in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Caste violence case. A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap said that whatever grievances Navlakha had in prison could be placed before the trial court for appropriate action. "Petitioner would be at liberty to bring to the attention of presiding officer of special NIA court the grievances in respect of difficulties faced by him and the said officer directed to ensure grievance redressed within parameters of law." 4. Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 162 The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an erga omnes effect or involves third party rights only after it has been admitted by the adjudicating authority, however, before its admission, there is no embargo on the power of the court to decide on an application filed under S.11 of the A&C Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. 5. Evidence Of Last Seen Together By Itself Not Conclusive That Death Was At Hands ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags