Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 To April 8, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 176 - 185]The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 176A v. B 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 177X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 178Anil Jaisinghani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 179Sameer Amrut Kondekar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 180M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 181PhonePe Private Limited v. Resilient Innovations Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 182Gunratan Sadavarte v. Registrar/Secretary Disciplinary Committee & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Avijit Michael v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 184Dr. Shivaraj Pataria v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 185Reports/JudgmentsMotor Accident | Remarriage Not A Taboo Against Compensation To Widow Of Deceased: Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagyashri Ganesh GaikwadCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 176The Bombay High Court held that remarriage will not disentitle the widow of a deceased in a motor accident from receiving compensation.Justice SG Dige observed that remarriage cannot be a taboo against motor accident compensationThe court noted that at the time of accident, the wife of the deceased was only 19 years old. She remarried during the pendency of the claim petition.The court said that a widow cannot be expected to remain a widow for life or till getting compensation.Bombay High Court Criticizes Sessions Judge For Giving "Single-Line" Reasoning While Setting Aside Magistrate's Detailed OrderCase Title: A v. BCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 177The Bombay High Court criticized a sessions judge for giving a single line reasoning to set aside a well-reasoned order passed by the judicial magistrate.Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench said that while writing a judgement in appeal, the court has to appreciate the case as if it is a trial before it.The court set aside the finding of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to his wife under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court noted that the Judge did not assign any reason for disagreeing with the reasoned order passed by the JMFC except a single line reason that there is sufficient evidence to established domestic violence.Father Cannot Avoid Paying Maintenance To Child By Seeking Frivolous Paternity Test: Bombay High CourtCase Title: X v. YCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 178The Bombay High Court held that a child can be ordered to undergo paternity test only in exceptional cases and father’s attempt to avoid paying maintenance to son by seeking DNA testing should be thwarted at the very inception.Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench dismissed a man’s plea seeking paternity test of a child born during cohabitation with his wife. The man did not allege infidelity on his wife’s part.[Amruta Fadnavis Complaint] Bombay High Court Dismisses Bookie Anil Jaisinghani's Plea Alleging Illegal ArrestCase Title: Anil Jaisinghani and Anr. v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 179The Bombay High Court dismissed bookie Anil Jaisinghani's plea alleging illegal arrest in the case filed by deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis's wife - Amruta Fadnavis.The bench of Justice AS Gadkari and PK Naik held that the Petitioners were produced before the court within the stipulated period and there is no breach of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and/or Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. is committed by the State.[False Promise To Marry] One Person Can't Be Prosecuted For Rape Merely Because Mutual Relationship Turned Sour: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sameer Amrut Kondekar v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 180When two people invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other alleged rape after things went south and the relationship didn’t culminate into a marriage, the Bombay High Court observed while discharging a man accused of raping his girlfriend of eight years.Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the trial court’s order refusing to discharge the man under sections 376, 323 of the IPC on a complaint filed by his 27-year-old girlfriend in 2016.Limited Remedy Available Under S. 34 Of A&C Act Against Award Of Compensation Under NHA, Is Not A Ground To Invoke HC’s Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and HighwaysCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 181The Bombay High Court ruled that though the scope for challenging the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator to the landowners under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA) is limited to the parameters provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act), the same cannot be a ground to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 To April 8, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags