Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 10 To April 16, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 186 - 196]VJ Jindal Cocoa Pvt Lt v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 186Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 187Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha Dutt 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 189Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 190Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirtech Private Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 191Shabnamjahan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 192Mahatarba alias Madhvkar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 193Mansi Bhavin Dharani v. Bhavin Jagdish Dharani 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 194Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 195Nishant s/o Pradeep Aggrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 196Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Refuses To Interfere With RBI Circular Permitting Only One Active Current Account If Total Credit Facilities Availed Exceed ₹50 CroreCase Title: VJ Jindal Cocoa Pvt Lt v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 186The Bombay High Court upheld HDFC Bank’s email that led to the freezing of current accounts held by cocoa manufacturer VJ Jindal Cocoa in various banks observing that since its “exposure” was over Rs. 50 crore it wasn’t permitted multiple active current accounts.‘Exposure’ in the present context means the total credit facilities availed by a borrower.A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale dismissed VJ Jindal’s petition to undo HDFC’s action on the ground that it was exempted from the relevant RBI circular since its current accounts with other banks pre-dated the HDFC account.Virat Kohli, Anushka Sharma Consent To Quash FIR Against Man Who Allegedly Tweeted Rape Threat To Their Daughter After T20 Loss In 2021Case Title: Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 187The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against a student accused of giving a rape threat to the 11-month-old infant of former Indian Cricket Team Captain Virat Kohli and actor Anushka Sharma, after a no-objection from the couple.A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik quashed the FIR against Hyderabad techie Ramnagesh Srinivas Akubathini registered by the Cyber Police under Section 354A (sexual harassment), 506 (criminal intimidation), 500 (defamation) of the IPC and Sections 67 & 67B of the IT Act 2000.Selection Committee Bound To Reconsider Employee For Promotion Based On Upgraded Performance Grade: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188The Bombay High Court recently held that when the grade of an employee is upgraded in his performance report, the selection committee has to reconsider him for promotion taking into account his upgraded grade.A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne allowed an employee’s writ petition seeking promotion once his performance grade was upgraded. The selection committee had reconsidered his case for promotion after upgradation of his grade, but still considered his non-upgraded grade and rejected him.Children Not Property, Parents Don’t Have Absolute Rights Over Their Destiny: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ashu Dutt v. Aneesha DuttCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 189“In India, matrimonial disputes constitute the most bitterly fought adversarial litigations and a stage comes when warring couples stop seeing reasons…In such cases, court’s must exercise the parent patriae jurisdiction,” the Bombay High Court observed while making visitation arrangements in a bitterly fought, long drawn matrimonial dispute.A division bench comprising Justices RD Dhanuka and Gauri Godse added that parents don’t have an absolute right over their child’s destiny and the most important consideration would be a child’s welfare and not the parent’s legal rights.Drug Manufacturer Can't Be Held Liable For Not Meeting Standards Prescribed After Date Of Manufacture: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 190The Bombay High Court recently held that manufacturer of a drug cannot be prosecuted for manufacturing drugs which do not fulfil such standards that were notified by the government after the date of manufacture.Justice Kishore C Sant of the Aurangabad bench set aside order of process against the manufacturer of Mediplus Scalp Vein Set, a device used for intravenous injections or taking blood samples observing – The court noted that scalp vein set was notified as a "Drug" and standards were prescribed for it by the government in 2005 while the sample collected by the Drug Inspector was manufactured in 2004.Plaintiff Alleging Breach Of Confidentiality Must Produce Confidential Info Before Court In Sealed Cover: Bombay High...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 10 To April 16, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags