Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 26 to December 31, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 518 – 527]ABC v. XYZ 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 518M/s. Mallak Specialities Pvt Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 519Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 520Altaf Babru Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 521GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Vodafone India Ltd. (VIL) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 522Jotun India Private Limited v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 523Javed Raza Shroff v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 524Siddhodhan alias Shudhodan s/o Namdeorao Kurule v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 525Bank of India v. Magnifico Minerals Private Limited and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 526Sandip Prakash Rathod v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 527Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Imposes ₹5000 Cost On Law Firm For Disclosing Rape Victim's Name In PetitionCase Title: ABC v. XYZCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 518The Bombay High Court recently took strong exception to the disclosure of a rape victim's name in the petition and imposed costs of Rs. 5000 on the law firm that drafted the petition.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan observed that advocates often don't refrain from using the victim's name despite Section 228A of IPC mandating non-disclosure of the rape victim's name and a 2-year punishment prescribed for the disclosure. "Despite Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and despite repeatedly telling the Advocates that it is an offence to disclose the name of the prosecutrix which is punishable with two years, the name of the prosecutrix is disclosed in the aforesaid petition. Hence, the law firm, who drafted the petition, to deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- with the Kirtikar Law Library within two weeks from today."Reference Limited To Quantum Of Compensation; Dispute Non-Arbitrable If Insurer Disputes Liability: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Mallak Specialities Pvt Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 519The Bombay High Court has ruled that where the arbitration clause only provided for reference of dispute relating to quantum of compensation payable under the insurance policy, the plea taken by the insurance company, disputing its liability under the policy, would make the dispute non-arbitrable.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre reiterated that an arbitration clause has to be interpreted strictly. The Court observed that the insurer's unequivocal admission of liability under the policy is sine qua non for triggering the arbitration clause, in absence of which the dispute between the parties fell under the excepted category, making the arbitration clause ineffective and incapable of being enforced.Arbitration Can Be Invoked Against Party Deleted From Section 9 Application: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 520The Bombay High Court has ruled that once an application is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (A&C Act), merely because the applicant choses to subsequently delete a party from the proceedings under Section 9, it cannot be held that the arbitral proceedings can never be invoked against such a party.The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that a party applying for interim measures under Section 9 may wish to delete certain parties, if it finds that the interim measures sought in the facts and circumstances of the case are limited to only a few of the parties to the proceedings.Vehicle Owner Also Liable To Pay For Maintenance, Treatment Of Animals Recovered From His Truck: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Altaf Babru Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 521The Bombay High Court upheld an order directing the owner of a vehicle to pay towards maintenance and health inspection of the animals seized from it under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.Justice Prakash Naik in the judgement noted that the Sessions Judge, while upholding the magistrate's order, has made reference to Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 which provides for joint and several liability for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals in case of offence relating to transport of animals, by the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved.Correspondence Between Parties Cannot Overrule Clear Intention Under Agreement Providing For Optional Arbitration: Bombay High CourtCase Title: GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Vodafone India Ltd. (VIL)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 522The Bombay High Court ruled that where a clause stipulated that the parties ‘may’ be referred to arbitration, the said clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement, despite the fact that the clause conferred a binding nature upon the decision of the Arbitrator. The Court added that the said clause merely...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 26 to December 31, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags