Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 To December 24, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 592 - 606]Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifers India Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 592Bank of India v. M/s. Maruti Civil Works 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 593Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 594HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nayajoddin Nijamuddin and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 595Dr. Sublendu Prakash Diwakar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 596Gautam P Navlakha v. National Investigating Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 597Atos India Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 598Isha Exim v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 599Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 600Aniket s/o Shahadev Labade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 601Parvej Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 602Leyla Mohmoodi v. Additional Commissioner of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 603Akshay Ashok Chaudhari and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 604Harjinder Kaur v. The Foreigner Regional Registration Office & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 605Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Kaamakazi Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 606Reports/JudgmentsCourt Can't Return Plaint Based On Defendant's Suit In Another Court Sans Explicitly Recording Lack Of Jurisdiction: Bombay HCCase Title: Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifers India Ltd. and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 592The Bombay High Court held that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant's suit is pending in another court and it would be desirable to try both suits together.Justice Sandeep V Marne set aside an order of the District Court, Kolhapur returning a plaint so that it could be filed in another court without explicitly giving a finding that the District Court, Kolhapur lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case.Trial Court Order Refusing To Return Or Reject A Plaint Not Appealable Under Commercial Courts Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bank of India v. M/s. Maruti Civil WorksCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 593The Bombay High Court held that no appeal is maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against an order of the court dismissing the defendant's application for rejecting or returning a plaint.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor observed that such orders are not specifically enumerated in Order 43 of the CPC which lists the kind of orders appealable under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.The court dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the District Judge, Thane rejecting Bank of India's application for rejecting a commercial suit against it.[S.60 Copyright Act] Inquiry Into 'Groundless Legal Proceedings' Can't Conclusively Determine Question Of Copyright Infringement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 594The Bombay High Court held that an inquiry under Section 60 of the Copyright Act by the trial court, cannot partake the character of determination as to whether there is indeed no infringement of copyright since the same would tend to pre-empt and prejudge an action for infringement of copyright, which the owner may institute.Section 60 of the Copyright Act allows a person who has received threats of legal action for copyright infringement or has been wrongly accused of infringement in advertisements to take legal action. The recipient of the threats can file a lawsuit seeking a court declaration of who rightfully owns the copyright. They can also seek a court injunction to stop further threats, as well as monetary damages. A single bench of Justice NJ Jamadar while remitting the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration, held that while an inquiry can be embarked upon under Section 60, in the present case, the inquiry had transgressed the remit of determination under the enacting part of Section 60 of the Act, as it ventures deep into the arena of infringement of the copyright or otherwise, in substance.Insurance Company Liable Under 'Pay & Recover' Principle Despite Policy Cancellation If Intimation Not Received By Offending Vehicle's Owner: Bombay HCCase Title: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nayajoddin Nijamuddin and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 595The Bombay High Court ruled that an insurance company, despite cancelling the policy, remains liable under the 'pay and recover' principle if the vehicle owner was not notified about such cancellation before the accident date.Justice Kishore C Sant sitting at Aurangabad dismissed an appeal filed by HDFC Ergo contesting a judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, directing it to pay compensation to the family of the deceased in a motor accident and recover the amount later from the vehicle owner. “the appellant could not produce evidence to show that the intimation of cancellation of policy was received by the insured prior to the date of accident. It is the ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 To December 24, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 To December 24, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers