Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: February 7 To February 13, 2022

1. A Company Cannot be Blacklisted without Warning of Debarment in Show Cause Notice. Blacklisting Causes Civil Death, Clear Show Cause Notice & Due Process A Must: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30 Observing that an entity cannot be blacklisted from participating in future contracts without being allowed a proper opportunity to defend itself and without following the due process of law, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a company in a contract with the Railways. The court held that the railway officials had not given the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his stand by failing to mention the possibility of debarment in the show-cause notice. 2. Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31 The limitation period for considering an appeal (reference) against a land acquisition order must be calculated from the date an application was first filed and not from the date a missing appeal copy was reconstructed and submitted by the applicant, the Bombay High Court held. The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't mean the application was filed later. 3. 'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case Case Title: Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 32 The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Director of a company accused of abetting the suicide of an employee, observing that all the allegations seemed to be part of "normal course of business" and that a company was "entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company." In the order, Justice Sarang Kotwal observed that the deceased, Nikhil Joshi, was taking treatment for stress management and was in a disturbed state of mind. "Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide," the court observed. 4. "Mujhse Bahut Badi Galti Huwi Hai": Bombay High Court Cites Extra-Judicial Confession To Uphold Conviction as also Commute Death Penalty Of 23 Yr Old Case Title: The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 33 An extra-judicial confession made voluntarily, free from threat or inducement, carries the presumption of truth, Bombay High Court observed adding that depending on the facts of the case, a confession doesn't need to be presumed as weak piece of evidence. Other considerations that weighed in with the bench were that the accused brought forth his crime by confessing to his friend, the accused's family neither tried to destroy evidence nor made attempts to conceal the accused. They also did not try to win over the friend to whom the extra judicial confession was made. In fact, the brother helped the police arrest the accused. 5. 'Parrot-Like Testimonies Of 6 Eye Witnesses, Humanly Impossible': Bombay High Court Acquits 20 Persons In Murder Case Case Title: Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 34 The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, acquitted 20 persons in a murder case, citing identical and parrot-like version of all the star prosecution witnesses, calling it as "humanly impossible". A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Pushpa Ganediwala, observed in the judgement, "It's difficult to believe that six eyewitnesses deposed in an identical fashion with each and every minute detail. In our considered opinion, it's humanly impossible. Not a single independent witness (except police and medical witness) was examined even when it is not the case that the incident occurred in isolation or during late night hours." 6. Due Caution Must Be Exercised By Appellate Court Before Reversing Acquittal Orders By Trial Courts: Bombay High Court Case: State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 35 Even if the appellate court is inclined to re-evaluate and re-appreciate evidence on record to take a different approach, such interference is not justified when the trial court's ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: February 7 To February 13, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags