Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Nominal Index Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102 Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103 Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104 Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105 Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106 V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107 Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108 Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109 Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110 Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111 Bhagyashri v Jagdish 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112 Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113 Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114 Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS 1. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102 Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release. The bench observed that Netflix and Star were not part of the consent terms, therefore its clauses couldn't be enforced against them. Moreover, Madman cannot seek injunction when the said rights have been acknowledged in the same document (Consent Terms) which granted Madman the rights qua the Film. 2.Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103 A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed. A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said. "Asif(Son) can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father's name and other in his mother's name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable." 3. Yes Bank Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar Case Title - Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104 Bombay High Court granted bail to Avantha Group promoter Gautam Thapar accused in a case being investigated by the CBI regarding his alleged involvement in a loan fraud against Yes bank. The court relied on the clarificatory decision of the Supreme Court in its order dated December, 16 2021 that " if during the course of investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused, merely because a charge sheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to arrest the petitioner, an aspect in general clarified by us in Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 in Siddharth v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr." 4.'Petitioner Has Reached Dot Age': Bombay HC Directs Trial Court To Complete Nonagenarian's Cross-Examination Despite Respondent's Transfer Plea Case Title: Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105 Giving precedence to the ripe age of a litigant, the Bombay High Court directed Small Causes Court to conclude a 92-year old's cross-examination in a dispute under the Rent Control Act, irrespective of a transfer application filed by the other side pending before the Principal Judge of that court. Keeping in mind the age of petitioner Trilok Singh Gandhi, the court directed that his cross-examination be completed within two months of receipt of the order and directed the respondent to cooperate with the trial. 5.Right To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement Before Intended Date Lost By Accepting Post-Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court Case Title : Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106 The HC held that an employee who ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags