Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 01 to January 08, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 1 – 14]World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 2Vanashakti and Anr. v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 3Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4Anil Vishnu Anturkar v. Chandrakumar Popatlal Baldota and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 5Alakshit S/o. Rajesh Ambade v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 6Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd v. MAD (India) Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 7Shobha w/o Deepak Thakre and Ors. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 8Edufocus International Education LLP v. Yashovardhan Birla & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 9Manas Mandar Godbole v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 10Vinod v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 11Abdul Rasul Nurallah Virjee and Anr. v. Regal Footwear 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 12Kantabai v. Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 13Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 14Reports/JudgmentsDispute Between Service Providers Can’t Be Referred to Arbitration: Bombay High CourtCase Title: World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In CentreCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 1The Bombay High Court ruled that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) is a self-contained Code, intended to deal with all disputes arising out of the Telecommunication Services provided in the country and therefore, the dispute between service providers which is likely to affect the consumers/subscribers, cannot be referred to arbitration. Thus, the Court concluded that the dispute between the service providers fell under the umbrella of the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in view of Section 14(a) (ii) of the TRAI Act. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in cases where a special statute has ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by constituting a judicial forum, the parties cannot waive their right to approach the specially created forum by opting for arbitration.'Causing Bomb Blast Not An Official Duty': Bombay High Court Dismisses Lt Col Prasad Purohit's Plea For Discharge In Malegaon Blast CaseCase Title: Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit v. National Investigation AgencyCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 2The Bombay High Court rejected an appeal filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a prime accused, seeking discharge in the case of 2008 Malegaon blast that killed six people and injured over 101.A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Prakash Naik pronounced the order. "Even otherwise indulging into an activity of a bomb explosion causing the death of six persons is not an act done by the Appellant in his official duty," said the court and rejected his claim that a sanction was required to prosecute him"After minutely perusing entire record we are of the considered opinion that, the offence/s alleged against the Appellant under Section 120-B r/w 302 and other related sections of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of UAP Act, of commission of murder of six persons and causing serious to grievous injuries to about 100 persons is nothing to do with his official duty. It has nothing to do or related in any manner with the discharge of the official duty of the Appellant," said the court.Dharavi Project | When Development Plan Shows It As Nature Park, No Other Activity Permitted: Bombay High Court On Mahim Nature ParkCase Title: Vanashakti and Anr. v. Dharavi Redevelopment Project Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 3The Bombay High Court observed that the Mahim Nature Park (MNP) cannot be exploited for development so long as it is reserved as a "Nature Park" in the Development Plan."So long as the Development Plan shows it as a Nature Park, no other activity can be carried out," the court said.The division bench headed by ACJ SV Gangapurwala disposed of a PIL filed by NGO Vanashakti and activist Zoru Bhathena after the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition officer clarified that the Nature Park has been excluded from the Dharavi Redevelopment project.MCOCA | Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute Does Not Invalidate Extension Of Judicial Custody Given By Special Court: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4Once the court extends the judicial custody of an accused, the refusal of sanction to prosecute will not invalidate the extension of custody, the Bombay High Court has held while refusing to grant default bail in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).The division bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench observed that the power of Special Judge under MCOCA to extend judicial custody by 90 days and power of Additional DGP to give sanction for prosecution...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 01 to January 08, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags