Digital Magazine

Current's

DIGITAL MAGAZINE

SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Issue No: 47 of 2023

Issue Date: 25/11/2023

TABLE OF CASES

Sr. No		Date
1.	Aarif & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr [SC]	19/10/2023
2.	Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr [SC]	09/11/2023
3.	Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [SC]	16/10/2023
4.	Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey [Bom.HC]	05/10/2023
5.	Harish Panditrao Bhailume vs. State of Maharashtra; Gautami Kisan Kadam [Bom.HC]	12/10/2023
6.	Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation & Anr[1] vs. Union of India & Ors [SC]	19/10/2023
7.	Jyotirmay Ray vs. Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors [SC]	06/11/2023
8.	Kavis Fashions Private Limited; Rupani Spining Mills Private Limited vs. Rupani Spining Mills Private Limited [Bom.HC]	01/11/2023
9.	Kishor S/o Laxman Mungulwar vs. State of Maharashtra [Bom.HC]	08/11/2023
10.	Kishor S/o Sureshchandra Darda; Tasnim Jafarali Ratlamwala vs. State of Maharashtra [Bom.HC]	06/11/2023
11.	Lombardi Engineering Limited vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited [SC]	06/11/2023
12.	M Hemalatha Devi & Ors vs. B Udayasri [SC]	05/10/2023
13.	Madan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [SC]	09/11/2023
14.	Manik S/o Motiram Dalwale Died; Madan S/o Manik Dalweale; Prabhawati Wd/o Raju Dalweale vs. Suhas Vasantrao Jawadekar; Sudhir Vasantrao Jawadekar; Sau Vjaya Hemant Sardesai; Bhaskar Vishwanath Jawadekar; Dattatraya Vishwanath Jawadekar; Ganesh Vasantrao Jawadekar; Gulabsing Bajiraosing Raghu [Bom.HC]	04/11/2023
15.	Mateshwari Agro Chemicals vs. State of Maharashtra; Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad; District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hingoli; Sanjay V Abdagire; Sharad Misra Khat Karkhana Mary [Bom.HC]	07/11/2023
16.	Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [SC]	12/10/2023
17.	New India Assurance Co Ltd , New India Assurance Building, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai; New India Assurance Co Ltd vs. Abdul Qadri Abdul Ajiz [Bom.HC]	03/10/2023
18.	Omkar Dattatraya Dangat vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr [Bom.HC]	16/10/2023
19.	Padmaja Pradip Walawalkar vs. Sadanand Govind Bagave and Anr [Bom.HC]	12/10/2023
20.	Pralhad Tulsiram Bundele vs. State of Maharashtra; Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashtra; Municipal Council (M C) / Nagar Parishad, Amravati; Assistant Director of Town Planning [Bom.HC]	20/10/2023
21.	Puneet Satpal Malhotra; Ankush Puneet Malhotra; Vidur Puneet Malhotra; Siya Puneet Malhotra; Seema Puneet Malhotra vs. Mukesh Satpal Malhotra; Ritu Mukesh Malhotra; Akshay Mukesh Malhotra; Shikha Nishchay Goel; Urvashi Sunil Sahani; Shibani Sunil Sahani; Nidhi Harsh Mishra; Ashwini Baldevraj Malhotra; Pooja Rohit Sood [Bom.HC]	16/10/2023
22.	Rajasthan Art Emporium vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr [SC]	09/11/2023
23.	Ruchir Rastogi vs. Pankaj Rastogi and Others Etc [SC]	19/10/2023
24.	Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation Ltd; M/s Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation Ltd vs. Pravin Satva Telang [Bom.HC]	04/11/2023
25.	Solaris Chem Tech Industries Ltd vs. Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr [SC]	10/10/2023

SUBJECT INDEX

Sr. No		Court
12.	ALL DISPUTES ARE NOT ARBITRABLE	[SC]
3.	ALTERNATE REMEDY	[SC]
7.	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION	[SC]
9.	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION	[Bom.HC]
18.	APPEL AGAINST CONVICTION	[Bom.HC]
4.	COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT OF	[Bom.HC]
17.	COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT OF	[Bom.HC]
13.	CONVICTION AND SENTENCE	[SC]
22.	CROSS APPEALS	[SC]
23.	DISPUTE REGARDING ARBITRATION AWARD	[SC]
16.	GRANT-IN-AID FROM GOVERNMENT	[SC]
20.	LAPSING OF RESERVATION	[Bom.HC]
8.	LICENCE FEE AND COMPENSATION	[Bom.HC]
15.	LIQUIDATION - INTERIM ORDER	[Bom.HC]
21.	MEMORANDUM OF PARTITION	[Bom.HC]
5.	RAPE AND CONSENSUAL SEX	[Bom.HC]
11.	REVIEW PETITION	[SC]
1.	REVISION APPLICATION	[SC]
10.	SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO BELIEVE	[Bom.HC]
14.	SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE	[Bom.HC]
19.	TENANCY REVISION APPLICATION	[Bom.HC]
24.	TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE	[Bom.HC]
2.	TWO DISTINCT RELIEFS	[SC]
25.	VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT	[SC]
6.	WRIT-PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION	[SC]

ACT AND SECTION INDEX

Sr. No
11.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11, Sec. 2, Sec. 12
25.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 7, Sec. 2
12.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 8, Sec. 11
23.	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 9, Sec. 36
13.	Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25
19.	Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 74, Sec. 4, Sec. 70, Sec. 76
22.	Carriage By Air Act, 1972 Sec. 22, Sec. 19, Sec. 13
14.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 21R. 98, Or. 21R. 101, Sec. 114, Or. 21R. 102, Or. 21R. 97, Or. 21R. 103, Sec. 47, Sec. 151
8.	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 39R. 2, Or. 20R 12, Or. 40R 1, Or. 39R. 1, Or. 43R. 1, Or. 15AR 1
18.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164
1.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 319
5.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482, Sec. 161, Sec. 227
13.	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 82, Sec. 83
25.	Constitution of India Art. 136, Art. 226
11.	Constitution of India Art. 226, Art. 14
24.	Constitution of India Art. 227, Art. 226, Art. 12
2.	Constitution of India Art. 227, Art. 32
6.	Constitution of India Art. 32
18.	Constitution of India Art. 39, Art. 15
8.	Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 74
16.	Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Sec. 1, Sec. 7B, Sec. 7A
18.	Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 35
13.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 147, Sec. 148, Sec. 149, Sec. 302, Sec. 307, Sec. 323, Sec. 452
4.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 279, Sec. 338
9.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 302
1.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 148, Sec. 302, Sec. 323
10.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 354A, Sec. 354, Sec. 376
18.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 363, Sec. 366A, Sec. 376
5.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 420, Sec. 375
23.	Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 380, Sec. 457, Sec. 378, Sec. 506
24.	Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25F, Sec. 2
10.	Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sec. 75
20.	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sec. 6
15.	Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 152, Sec. 104, Sec. 20, Sec. 20A, Sec. 102, Sec. 105, Sec. 154
20.	Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 42A
24.	Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 30
20.	Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 127, Sec. 49, Sec. 44, Sec. 126, Sec. 46
8.	Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 33, Sec. 24
21.	Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 34, Sec. 58, Sec. 32A, Sec. 2, Sec. 35, Sec. 33
4.	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134A, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 134, Sec. 134B
17.	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 165, Sec. 175
7.	Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Sec. 4
8.	Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 Sec. 41
10.	Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 6, Sec. 19, Sec. 21, Sec. 10, Sec. 8, Sec. 12
18.	Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 6, Sec. 4, Sec. 5
23.	Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Sec. 25
7.	Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 Reg 38, Reg 46, Reg 45
7.	Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 Reg 4
14.	Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 18
18.	Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Sec. 17
2.	Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sec. 8
20.	Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sec. 19, Sec. 51
6.	Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Sec. 14, Sec. 22, Sec. 6, Sec. 13, Sec. 21, Sec. 20, Sec. 2, Sec. 23, Sec. 29, Sec. 10, Sec. 7, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11, Sec. 25, Sec. 4, Sec. 24
6.	Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 Rule 9, Rule 10, Rule 5
14.	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52

LATEST CHANGES IN MAHARASHTRA LOCAL ACTS AND RULES

The Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2023

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. XLVI OF 2023

(First published, after having received the assent of the President in the “Maharashtra Government Gazette”, on the 20th November 2023.)

An Act further to amend the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948.

WHEREAS it is expedient further to amend the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Bom. XL of 1948), for the purposes hereinafter appearing; it is hereby enacted in the Seventy-fourth Year of the Republic of India, as follows:-

1. Short title.- (1) This Act may be called the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2023.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

2. Amendment of section 3 of Bom. XL of 1948.- In section 3 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Bom. XL of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act”),-

(i) for the words “, not exceeding rupees one crore in value,” the words “, not exceeding rupees ten crore in value,” shall be substituted;

(ii) the proviso shall be deleted.

3. Amendment of section 4A of Bom. XL of 1948.- In section 4A of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the words, figures and brackets “section 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Mah. XXV of 2012)” the words, figures and brackets “section 2 of the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Mah. XLVI of 2023)” shall be substituted.

4. Power to remove difficulty.- (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Bom. XL of 1948), as amended by this Act, the State Government may, as occasion arises, by an order published in the Official Gazette, do anything, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, as amended by this Act, which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty:

Provided that, no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature.

-------------------

SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT

[1] - REVISION APPLICATION

2023(10)CPSC69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Rajasthan High Court]

(Before Abhay S Oka ; Pankaj Mithal)

Criminal Appeal No 3172 of 2023, dated 19-10-2023

Aarif & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 148, Sec. 302, Sec. 323 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 319 -In a pending prosecution the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,by order directed to proceed against accused who were not added in the charge sheet - The Revision Application against this order preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court by impugned order - The High Court in the same matter earlier held unless the evidence of other prosecution witnesses (eyewitnesses) is recorded, the application under Section 319 cannot be considered - Though opportunities were available earlier, the statement of the witness was recorded very late - Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The Court has to consider the prima facie view strictly - Evidence of the said witnesses is insufficient to meet the standards of a prima facie case under Section 319 laid down by the Constitution Bench - No other evidence is relied upon by the respondents to support the application under Section 319 thus application stands dismissed - Appeal succeeds -The impugned order is set aside.

[Paras: 1,6, 8, 9]

Law Point: Under Section 319of Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same as that of taking cognizance, the degree of satisfaction that is required under section 319 is much stricter.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 341, Sec. 149, Sec. 148, Sec. 302, Sec. 323
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 319

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[2] - TWO DISTINCT RELIEFS

2023(11)CPSC66

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha ; Manoj Misra)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2016, dated 09-11-2023

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 227 - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Section 8 - Two distinct reliefs - Sought by appellant - Filed petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India - First prayer relates to expeditious disposal of criminal case against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies - Second prayer relates to constitutional validity of Section 8 of Act of 1951 - Determination of - Supreme Court was of the opinion that there exist multiple factors - Each of these influences early disposal of subject cases - This, coupled with their dissimilarity from State to State, makes it difficult for this Court to form a uniform or standard guideline for trial Courts across length and breadth of this country to dispose of subject cases - Under Article 227, High Court are entrusted with power of superintendence over district judiciary - Supreme Court deem it appropriate to leave it to High Courts to evolve such method or apply such measures that they deem expedient for an effective monitoring of subject cases - Directions issued - Petition disposed of.

[Paras 19, 20 and 21]

Law Point -

(1) If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or of indefinite duration.

(2) Supreme Court framed "witness Protection Scheme, 2018" and made it applicable to all states till enactment of suitable legislation by Parliament or State legislations.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 227, Art. 32
Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sec. 8

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[3] - ALTERNATE REMEDY

2023(10)CPSC72

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Bombay High Court]

(Before B R Gavai ; Prashant Kumar Mishra)

Civil Appeal No 9913 of 2022, dated 16-10-2023

Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors

The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court which though admitted the issue refused interim relief on the ground that there is an alternate remedy -Non-Consideration of the question of grant or refusal of interim relief after admission, on ground of available alternate remedy, would be a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court to consider whether the interim relief needs to be granted or not - The appeal is allowed, to the extent indicated.

[Para : 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9]

Law Point : When the High Court finds that there is merit in the matter and admits it, then it was also bound to consider as to whether the interim relief should have been granted or not

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[4] - COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT OF

2023(10)CPMH38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Abhay Ahuja)

First Appeal No. 147 of 2019, dated 05-10-2023

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 279, Sec. 338 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134A, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 134, Sec. 134B - Compensation - Entitlement of - Neglignce - Preponderance of probabilities, as gathered from evidence of FIR - Mere production of disability certificate or discharge will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant is tendered for cross examination with reference to the certificate - Respondent is having 50% total partial disability -Appellant has not brought on record any contrary evidence - Respondent and also assessed the disability of the Respondent, was tendered for cross examination with reference to the disability certificate - This is not a case where an unscrupulous Doctor has without treating the injured given the certificate - No evidence to this effect has been brought on record and hence the reference to the medical board is clearly not necessary - Tribunal has considered functional disability of 45% instead of 50% which has been accepted by the Respondent - Appeal dismissed

[Para 20,21,22]

Law Point - Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 279, Sec. 338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 134A, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 134, Sec. 134B

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[5] - RAPE AND CONSENSUAL SEX

2023(10)CPMH96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before S G Chapalgaonkar)

Criminal Revision Application No 34 of 2023, dated 12-10-2023

Harish Panditrao Bhailume vs. State of Maharashtra; Gautami Kisan Kadam

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 420, Sec. 375 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482, Sec. 161, Sec. 227-appellant challenged order passed by ADJ and prayed for discharge from offence punishable under s.376 and 420 IPC-appellant and respondent no.2(original complainant) were engaged in love affair since school days and developed sexual relationship-respondent alleged that appellant falsely promised to marry with her and sexually exploited under misrepresentation of adherence to promise-HC observed that sexual relationship between them was consensual and does not fall in category of rape-appellant discharged-application allowed.

[Para 5-17]

Law Point - If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 420, Sec. 375
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482, Sec. 161, Sec. 227

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[6] - WRIT-PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION

2023(10)CPSC80

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before S Ravindra Bhat ; Dipankar Datta)

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2017, dated 19-10-2023

Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation & Anr[1] vs. Union of India & Ors

Constitution of India Art. 32 - Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Sec. 14, Sec. 22, Sec. 6, Sec. 13, Sec. 21, Sec. 20, Sec. 2, Sec. 23, Sec. 29, Sec. 10, Sec. 7, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11, Sec. 25, Sec. 4, Sec. 24 - Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 Rule 9, Rule 10, Rule 5 - The writ-petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of appropriate orders directing the respondents to take steps for implementing the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Rules without any further delay - It is pointed out that there is a lack of clarity as to the District Officer's role in relation to the annual reports contemplated under Section 21 and 22 - The affidavit filed by the petitioner in response highlights the many lacunae and lack of uniformity in the implementation of the Act, by various state governments - Most states have failed to provide documentation on constitution of LCs - The complaint mechanism, and larger framework - no matter how effective, remain inadequate if the authorities set out in the Act, are not duly appointed/notified - Act defines penalty to be imposed on the employer for non compliance however, the Rules are woefully silent on the reporting authority actually responsible for taking note of the noncompliance, and the public authority empowered to collect the said fine - Having regard to the these lacunae ,directions (under the relevant heads) to ensure the effective implementation of the Act are issued, and render it workable.

[Para : 1,8,12,13,21,22]

Law Point : Lacks and Lacunae in Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 Rule 9, Rule 10, Rule 5

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 32
Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Sec. 14, Sec. 22, Sec. 6, Sec. 13, Sec. 21, Sec. 20, Sec. 2, Sec. 23, Sec. 29, Sec. 10, Sec. 7, Sec. 5, Sec. 8, Sec. 11, Sec. 25, Sec. 4, Sec. 24
Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 Rule 9, Rule 10, Rule 5

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[7] - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

2023(11)CPSC56

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before J K Maheshwari ; K V Viswanathan)

Civil Appeal No. 6611 of 2015, dated 06-11-2023

Jyotirmay Ray vs. Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder by poisoning - Conviction and sentence - Confirmed by High Court - Appeal against - Determination of - Scanty evidence - It is difficult to hold that prosecution had proved four important proposition laid down by this Court in case of allegation of murder of poisoning namely (1) the accused had a clear motive to administer poison to deceased; (2) the deceased died of poison said to have been administered; (3) the deceased had the poison in his possession and that (4) the accused had no opportunity to administer the poison to deceased - Chemical examination report though was an incriminating piece of evidence, was not brought to notice of appellant during course of his examination - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appellant is acquitted - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 26 to 29]

Law Point -

(1) As per settled law, though a statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction relying upon such dying declaration alone.

(2) First Information Report under Section 154 of CrPC, as such Court not be treated as a substantive piece of evidence.

(3) It is well settled that delay in giving FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.

Acts Referred:

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Sec. 4
Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 Reg 38, Reg 46, Reg 45
Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 Reg 4

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[8] - LICENCE FEE AND COMPENSATION

2023(11)CPMH46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Sandeep V Marne)

Appeal From Order; Interim Application No. 327 of 2021; 2888 of 2021, 3415 of 2022, dated 01-11-2023

Kavis Fashions Private Limited; Rupani Spining Mills Private Limited vs. Rupani Spining Mills Private Limited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XV-A, Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 33 and 24 - Presiding Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Licence fee and compensation - Appeal against order of trial Court - Determination of - Provision of Order XV-A are stringent and drastic - Failure to deposit/pay the arrears of rent/license fee result in striking off defence of defendant - Court needs to exercise discretion - Trial Court has erred in directing deposit/payment of entire amount of rent plus compensation under Order XV-A of Code - Order passed by trial Court is modified to extent that defendant shall deposit in trial Court further amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under provisions of Order XV-A of the Code, within a period of 8 weeks from to day - Appeal disposed of with directions.

[Paras 33 and 35]

Law Point - Under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Rent Control Act, a licensee failing to deliver possession of licensed premises upon expiration of license period is made liable to pay damages at double the rate of license fee or charge fixed under the agreement of license.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 39R. 2, Or. 20R 12, Or. 40R 1, Or. 39R. 1, Or. 43R. 1, Or. 15AR 1
Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 74
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 33, Sec. 24
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 Sec. 41

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[9] - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

2023(11)CPMH42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before Vibha Kankanwadi ; Abhay S Waghwase)

Criminal Appeal No 54 of 2018, dated 08-11-2023

Kishor S/o Laxman Mungulwar vs. State of Maharashtra

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction - Related witness - Testimony - Held - Merely because witnesses are related, their evidence need not be looked upon suspicion - Appeal dismissed.

[Paras 7 to 10]

Law Point - Merely because witnesses are related, their evidence need not be looked upon suspicion.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 302

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[10] - SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO BELIEVE

2023(11)CPMH48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]

(Before Anil L Pansare)

Criminal Application (Apl) No. 295 of 2017, 296 of 2017, 297 of 2017, dated 06-11-2023

Kishor S/o Sureshchandra Darda; Tasnim Jafarali Ratlamwala vs. State of Maharashtra

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354-A, 354 and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 19, 21, 10, 8 and 12 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 75 - Knowledge - Offence under POCSO Act - Held - Merely on the basis of the grievance of parents, one cannot attribute knowledge of commission of offence to the applicants - Mere information cannot be equated with "sufficient cause to believe" the occurrence of the incident - Rule made absolute.

[Paras 14 to 23]

Law Point - Mere information cannot be equated with "sufficient cause to believe" the occurrence of the incident.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 354A, Sec. 354, Sec. 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 6, Sec. 19, Sec. 21, Sec. 10, Sec. 8, Sec. 12
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sec. 75

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[11] - REVIEW PETITION

2023(11)CPSC57

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Uttarakhand High Court]

(Before Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ; J B Pardiwala ; Manoj Misra)

Arbitration Petition No. 43 of 2022, dated 06-11-2023

Lombardi Engineering Limited vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 1 and 7-A - Manufacturing, assembling and selling umbrellas - Appellant engaged in - Respondent issued notice - Alleging that 1952 Act was applicable to appellant - Inquiry - Respondent held that case of appellant was covered by Notification dated 7.3.1962 - Review petition filed by appellant - Rejected - Appeal - Dismissed by Appellate Authority - Petition against order - Dismissed by Single Judge - Division Bench confirmed the same - Hence this appeal - Establishment of appellant is a commercial establishment - Business of appellant will fall in category of 'trading and commercial establishment' - Case of appellant will be governed by said notification issued under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 - No error in view taken by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court - Appeals dismissed.

[Paras 8 and 9]

Law Point - Clause (a) of sub-section (3) as well as Clause (b) of sub-section (3) are applicable to establishment.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 226, Art. 14
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11, Sec. 2, Sec. 12

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[12] - ALL DISPUTES ARE NOT ARBITRABLE

2023(10)CPSC82

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Telangana High Court]

(Before Sanjay Kishan Kaul ; Sudhanshu Dhulia)

Civil Appeal No 6500 of 2023, 6501 of 2023, dated 05-10-2023

M Hemalatha Devi & Ors vs. B Udayasri

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 8, Sec. 11 - The application and its review was dismissed by High Court where the appellants filed for the appointment of an arbitrator dismissed on ground that complaint by other party pending before District Consumer Forum and remedy under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act - hence this appeal - All disputes are not arbitrable. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy - where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration - The exclusion of a dispute from arbitration may be express or implied- resort to arbitration merely for the reason that it has been provided in the contract, cannot be compelled - remedy in the Special Legislation is an additional one - The question, is of choice, not of which party had approached the court first, The law gives this choice to the consumer which forum to opt for - The amendment in Section 8 cannot be given expansive meaning and intent so as to inundate entire regime of special legislations where such disputes were held to be not arbitrable - The application under Section 11 was not maintainable - appeal dismissed.

[Para : 1,2,3,8,9, 10, 21, 23, 24]

Law Point: whether the dispute between the parties is arbitrable, and once a party has availed the remedy before a public forum under a special beneficial legislation, can it be compelled to go for arbitration?

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 8, Sec. 11

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[13] - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

2023(11)CPSC67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Allahabad High Court]

(Before B R Gavai ; B V Nagarathna ; Prashant Kumar Mishra)

Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2017, 1382 of 2017, 1790 of 2017, dated 09-11-2023

Madan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 452 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Murder of six persons - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against before High Court - High Court confirmed the Death Reference insofar as appellant 'M' is concerned - Whereas insofar as appellant 'S' is concerned, his appeal was partly allowed and sentence of capital punishment imposed on him was converted to life imprisonment - Appeal before Supreme Court - Judgment and order passed by High Court challenged by appellant - Legality - Determination of - Judgment of High Court - Perusal of - High Court would reveal that only distinction drawn by High Court between cases of 'S' and 'M' is the additional factor that 'M' was already awarded life imprisonment in another case - Past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty - High Court was not justified in imposing death penalty on 'M' - Present case would fall in middle path - Interest of justice would be met by converting death penalty into life imprisonment i.e. actual imprisonment for a period 20 years without remission - Directions issued - Appeals disposed of.

[Paras 76, 77 and 78]

Law Point -

(1) History of convict of itself cannot be a ground for awarding him death penalty.

(2) Advance age is one of mitigating circumstances in favour of convict.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 147, Sec. 148, Sec. 149, Sec. 302, Sec. 307, Sec. 323, Sec. 452
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 82, Sec. 83
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[14] - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

2023(11)CPMH50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before S G Mehare)

Appeal From Order No. 55 of 2011, dated 04-11-2023

Manik S/o Motiram Dalwale Died; Madan S/o Manik Dalweale; Prabhawati Wd/o Raju Dalweale vs. Suhas Vasantrao Jawadekar; Sudhir Vasantrao Jawadekar; Sau Vjaya Hemant Sardesai; Bhaskar Vishwanath Jawadekar; Dattatraya Vishwanath Jawadekar; Ganesh Vasantrao Jawadekar; Gulabsing Bajiraosing Raghu

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 47, 114 and 151, Order XXI, Rule 101; Order XXI, Rule 97 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 18 - Suit for specific performance - Filed by plaintiff - Trial Court denied specific performance - But granted alternate relief of refund of earnest money - Appeal - Allowed - Specific performance of contract granted - During pendency of suit - Defendant sold the premises - Special Darkhast - Filed by plaintiff - Transferee pendente lite, namely 'R', 'D', 'G', 'Y' and 'N' were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 5 to 9 - Possession warrant - Issued by executing Court - Respondent No. 10 had resisted execution of possession warrant - She claimed that she was a bona fide transferee without notice - Decree holder applied for police aid - Application dismissed - She again filed application under Sections 114 and 151 of CPC - For review of order - Rejected - Appeal before First Appellate Court - Allowed - District Judge remitted the matter back to executing Court - For deciding and adjudicating right, title and interest of respondent No. 10 in suit property - Legality and validity of - Court concludes that impugned judgment and order of District Judge is bad in law and perverse - Quashed and set aside - Orders of Executing Court are restored - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 2 to 9 and 55]

Law Point - By Transfer of Property and Indian Registration (Bombay Amendment) Act XV of 1939, the rule of 'lis pendens' apply only when a notice of pendency of suit in which any right of immovable property is directly and specifically in question, is registered under Section 18 of Registration Act.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 21R. 98, Or. 21R. 101, Sec. 114, Or. 21R. 102, Or. 21R. 97, Or. 21R. 103, Sec. 47, Sec. 151
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52
Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 18

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[15] - LIQUIDATION - INTERIM ORDER

2023(11)CPMH51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Before Arun R Pedneker)

Writ Petition No. 7062 of 2022, dated 07-11-2023

Mateshwari Agro Chemicals vs. State of Maharashtra; Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad; District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hingoli; Sanjay V Abdagire; Sharad Misra Khat Karkhana Mary

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 152, 104, 20, 20-A, 102, 105 and 154 - Liquidation - Interim order - Confirmed by respondent No. 2 - Respondent No. 5 Revision Application - Challenging the order passed by District Deputy Registrar - Petitioner filed intervention application in revision application - Revision application filed by respondent No. 5 allowed - Petitioner challenged the order - Legality - Determination of - Petitioner has a pending lis with respondent No. 5 society as regards dues of petitioner - There are claims and counter claims by society - Issue of dues is pending before appropriate Court and Tribunal - Petitioner at any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be "person affected thereby" if order of liquidation is set aside - Petitioner has no legal right in liquidation of society - Petitioner is a stranger - Court hold that petitioner has no legal/statutory right to intervene and claim status of party respondent in revision petition filed before the Minister by respondent No. 5 society to challenge order of liquidation passed by District Deputy Registrar - Issue of locus - Petitioner does not have 'locus' to invoke writ jurisdiction of Court - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 19, 20 and 29]

Law Point - It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfied the Authority/Court, that he falls within category of aggrieved person.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 152, Sec. 104, Sec. 20, Sec. 20A, Sec. 102, Sec. 105, Sec. 154

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[16] - GRANT-IN-AID FROM GOVERNMENT

2023(10)CPSC35

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Karnataka High Court]

(Before Hima Kohli ; Rajesh Bindal)

Civil Appeal No. 4188 of 2013, dated 12-10-2023

Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 1 (3)(b), 7-B and 7-A - Amount of contributions - Assessed by Commissioner - Order challenged by appellant before Tribunal - Dismissed - Petition before High Court - Dismissed by single Judge - Writ appeal - Order of single Judge was upheld by Division Bench of High Court - Hence this appeal - Mere fact that two Institutes, managed and controlled by same management, offer different courses or were established at different times is not relevant for their clubbing under EPF Act - Fact that one of institutes receives 100% grant-in-aid from Government while the other is receiving to extent of 70%, is also not relevant - After coverage of establishments, benefits, as determined for purpose of assessing dues under EPF Act, have already been assessed by Commissioner - It can be safely opined that there is financial integrity between society of appellant as well as Ideal Institute as substantial funds have been advanced to Institutes by Society - Both Institutes are functioning from same premises - Appeal dismissed.

[Paras 22, 23 and 24]

Law Point - No straight jacket formula or test can be laid down for purpose of clubbing of two establishments and coverage under EPF Act.

Acts Referred:

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Sec. 1, Sec. 7B, Sec. 7A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[17] - COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT OF

2023(10)CPMH52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]

(Before M S Jawalkar)

Second Appeal No. 68 of 2006, dated 03-10-2023

New India Assurance Co Ltd , New India Assurance Building, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai; New India Assurance Co Ltd vs. Abdul Qadri Abdul Ajiz

A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 165, Sec. 175 - Compensation - Entitlement of - Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim petition with respect to damages to any property of a third party alone - It necessarily excludes the claim for damages to a property other than of a third party - Bar under Section 175 would be there where the Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area under Section 165 of the Act - Claim for compensation with regard to owner's vehicle does not come within the ambit of Section 165 of the Act - Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation as well as damages caused to the owner of the vehicle - Substantial question of law is answered in negative - Held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation and damages sustained by the owner of the vehicle - Appeal dismissed.

[Para 14]

B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 165, Sec. 175 -Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Substantial question of law is in regard of jurisdiction in view of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicle Act - Section 147 lays down the requirements of policies and limits of liability - Its sub-section (2)(b) provides that a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the limit provided therein. Clause (b) of Section 147(2) provides that the liability under a policy of insurance would be in respect of damage to any property of a third party - Now coming to Section 165 of the Act which deals with the Claims Tribunal - It provides for the establishment of Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claim petition for compensation in respect of accidents - Involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles - Damages to any property of a third party so arising or both

[Para 13]

C) Words and Phrases - Use of words "third party" is of some significance - It necessarily excludes the claim for damages to a property other than of a third party - Use of word "third party" in the last clause of Section 165(1) is indicative of the legislation intention that the damage to owner's property is not within the ambit and scope of Claims Tribunal - Payment of compensation involving death or bodily injury or damages to any property or both to a third party is conceptually different to payment of such compensation to the injured person for damages to his own vehicle, under the Act

Law Point - Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

Acts Referred:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 165, Sec. 175

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[18] - APPEL AGAINST CONVICTION

2023(10)CPMH108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Bharati Dangre)

Criminal Appeal; Interim Application No 3110 of 2023, dated 16-10-2023

Omkar Dattatraya Dangat vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr

Constitution of India Art. 39, Art. 15-Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 363, Sec. 366A, Sec. 376-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164-Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 35 -Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Sec. 17-Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 6, Sec. 4, Sec. 5-appellant challenged conviction and sentence passed by learned trail court under POCSO Act for 10 years of imprisonment-learned counsel appearing for appellant claimed that sexual relationship between him and victim was consensual-he questioned minority of victim's age-beyond scope of reasonable doubt, prosecution proved that age of girl was below 18-perusing all records, facts and considering previous judgements, HC upheld the POCSO judge's pronouncement and denied any interference-appeal dismissed.

[Para 10-26]

Law Point - An x-ray ossifcation test may provide an surer basis for determining the age of an individual than the opinion of a medical expert, but it can be by no means be so infallible and accurate test as to indicate the exact date of birth of the person concerned

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 39, Art. 15
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 363, Sec. 366A, Sec. 376
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 35
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Sec. 17
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 6, Sec. 4, Sec. 5

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[19] - TENANCY REVISION APPLICATION

2023(10)CPMH54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Sandeep V Marne)

Writ Petition No. 977 of 2022, dated 12-10-2023

Padmaja Pradip Walawalkar vs. Sadanand Govind Bagave and Anr

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 74, 4, 70 and 76 - Tenancy Application - Filed by petitioner - Inquiry - Allowed by Tehsildar - Respondents challenged the decision of Tehsildar - Rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) - Respondent filed thereafter Tenancy Revision Application - MRT allowed - Petitioner has challenged MRT's judgment before High Court - Determination of - In the instant case, there is a specific admission by petitioner, that she does not possess suit land - Additionally, she failed to produced circumstantial evidence of cultivation/possession, which is a mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 4 - Oral evidence of Police Patil does not inspire confidence on account of her admission that affidavit of evidence filed by her was on basis of hersay information - MRT has rightly set aside the orders passed by Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer - Petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed without any order as to costs.

[Paras 23 and 24]

Law Point : Under Section 4 (2), once it is demonstrated that a person cultivates and land for an interrupted period of not less than 12 years, he is deemed to be a tenant for purpose of Section 4.

Acts Referred:

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 74, Sec. 4, Sec. 70, Sec. 76

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[20] - LAPSING OF RESERVATION

2023(10)CPMH81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]

(Before Prithviraj K Chavan ; Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

Writ Petition No. 8258 of 2022, dated 20-10-2023

Pralhad Tulsiram Bundele vs. State of Maharashtra; Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashtra; Municipal Council (M C) / Nagar Parishad, Amravati; Assistant Director of Town Planning

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 127, 49, 44, 126 and 46 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 42-A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 19 and 51 - Lapsing of reservation - Entire controversy revolves around Section 127 of MRTP Act - Determination of - Petitioner being joint owner of subject land - Interested person - Issued purchase notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act - Purchase notice has been duly served upon respondents - Statutory period for 24 months has thus expired - No notification issued or published - No proper and complete steps for acquisition of subject land owned by petitioner have been taken by respondent within statutory period of 24 months and therefore, reservation has lapsed - Direction issued - Petition allowed.

[Paras 30 to 33]

Law Point - Section 127 of MRTP Act gives an opportunity to owner for de-reservation of land if no steps are taken for acquisition by authorities within a period of six months in spite of service of notice for de-reservation after period of 10 years has expired.

Acts Referred:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sec. 6
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sec. 127, Sec. 49, Sec. 44, Sec. 126, Sec. 46
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 42A
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sec. 19, Sec. 51

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[21] - MEMORANDUM OF PARTITION

2023(10)CPMH72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before Amit Borkar)

Writ Petition No. 10684 of 2023, dated 16-10-2023

Puneet Satpal Malhotra; Ankush Puneet Malhotra; Vidur Puneet Malhotra; Siya Puneet Malhotra; Seema Puneet Malhotra vs. Mukesh Satpal Malhotra; Ritu Mukesh Malhotra; Akshay Mukesh Malhotra; Shikha Nishchay Goel; Urvashi Sunil Sahani; Shibani Sunil Sahani; Nidhi Harsh Mishra; Ashwini Baldevraj Malhotra; Pooja Rohit Sood

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 34, 58, 32-A, 2, 35 and 33 - Memorandum of partition - Impounding - Trial Court rejected the petitioners' application - Filed present petition - Determination of - Memorandum of partition is evidence of past transactions of partition - Document required to be stamped - But Court as well parties missed to notice - Document was admitted in evidence - Contention raised on behalf of respondents that trial Court had no power to pass an order for impounding document under Section 33 of Act has no merit and must be rejected - Impugned order passed by Joint Civil Judge, quashed and set aside - Application below Exhibit-354 is allowed - Memorandum of partition be forwarded to Collector of Stamp for impounding same by keeping a verified copy of document on record - Petition disposed of in terms.

[Paras 22 to 25]

Law Point - Section 36 prohibits questioning of admission of document in evidence, and it no way affects the power of authority or Court to impound a document under Section 33 when insufficiently stamped document is produced before Court.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 34, Sec. 58, Sec. 32A, Sec. 2, Sec. 35, Sec. 33

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[22] - CROSS APPEALS

2023(11)CPSC61

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before A S Bopanna ; Prashant Kumar Mishra)

Civil Appeal No. 9106 of 2012, 9194 of 2012, dated 09-11-2023

Rajasthan Art Emporium vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr

Carriage By Air Act, 1972 Sec. 22, Sec. 19, Sec. 13 - Cross appeals preferred against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Appellant being exporter of goods booked consignment with respondent who assured delivery within time, however it delayed - Appellant filed complaint seeking Compensation before NCDRC - The consignment booked on a specific representation of delivery on specific date, time is the essence of the contract between the parties - Respondent no. 1 seems highly negligent in rendering its services - Record shows specific schedule of delivery given by agent of Respondent no. 1 - the principal is bound by acts or obligation incurred by agent, within implied authority -Also it is not averred that the respondent no.2 was not the agent of respondent No.1 - Appellant claims compensation calculated for delay according to Carriage by Air Act which exceeds the amount seek in complaint prayer - It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for - No interfere required with the Order passed hence both the Civil Appeals are dismissed.

[Para : 1,2 8,21, 22, 24,25]

Law Point: Whether the respondent No.1 is bound by the promise held by its agent respondent No.2, that the goods shall be delivered within specific time? Also, party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for.

Acts Referred:

Carriage By Air Act, 1972 Sec. 22, Sec. 19, Sec. 13

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[23] - DISPUTE REGARDING ARBITRATION AWARD

2023(10)CPSC64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Allahabad High Court]

(Before Vikram Nath ; Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Criminal Appeal No. 3283 of 2023, 3284 of 2023, dated 19-10-2023

Ruchir Rastogi vs. Pankaj Rastogi and Others Etc

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 380, 457, 378 and 506 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 36 - Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1987 - Section 25 - FIR - Lodged by appellant against private respondents - Quashed by High Court - Appeal against - Determination of - Dispute regarding arbitration award and its execution - Even in absence thereof once there was an injunction granted to preserve property, respondent No. 1 could not have dealt with same and, at the out set, he should have informed the appellant about orders passed under Section 9 of 1996 Act - He should have refrained himself from surrendering possession of shop in question - His participation in crime prima facie, therefore, cannot be ruled out - Impugned judgment of High Court set aside - Matter to proceed with respect to FIR in question in accordance with law - Appeals allowed.

[Paras 16 and 17]

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 380, Sec. 457, Sec. 378, Sec. 506
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 9, Sec. 36
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Sec. 25

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[24] - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE

2023(11)CPMH64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before N J Jamadar)

Writ Petition No. 3722 of 2023, dated 04-11-2023

Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation Ltd; M/s Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation Ltd vs. Pravin Satva Telang

Constitution of India - Articles 227, 226 and 12 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25-F and 2 - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 30 - Termination of employee - Re-instatement - Power of Court - Held - Where the employer - Employee relationship is brought to an end by an order of termination, ordinarily, during the pendency of the complaint/reference the Court/Tribunal shall not direct the reinstatement of the terminated employee as that would amount to compelling the employer to continue to employ a person whose services have been terminated on account of the misconduct or otherwise - If at the conclusion of the proceedings, the Court finds that the employee was wrongfully terminated from the service, the Court is equipped to pass appropriate orders, including reinstatement with all consequential benefits - Petition allowed.

[Paras 21 to 31]

Law Point - Where the employer/employee relationship is brought to an end by an order of termination, ordinarily, during the pendency of the complaint/reference the Court/Tribunal shall not direct the reinstatement of the terminated employee as that would amount to compelling the employer to continue to employ a person whose services have been terminated on account of the misconduct or otherwise.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 227, Art. 226, Art. 12
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25F, Sec. 2
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 30

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[25] - VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

2023(10)CPSC93

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Karnataka High Court]

(Before Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ; J B Pardiwala ; Manoj Misra)

Civil Appeal No 6609 of 2023, dated 10-10-2023

Solaris Chem Tech Industries Ltd vs. Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr

Constitution of India Art. 136, Art. 226 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 7, Sec. 2 - This appeal arises from a judgment of Division Bench which dismissed a Writ Appeal and affirmed order of Single Judge in application by appellant to set aside notices Karnataka Water Board in pursuant to Agreement between the Parties - Clause 11 of agreement stipulated that any dispute that would arise between the parties would be resolved firstly by mutual discussion and on a failure of that, by referring the matter to the Chief Engineer - Clause 11.2 of the agreement does not constitute the Chief Engineer as an arbitral tribunal - The Chief Engineer is an employee of the Board, Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act disqualifies an employee of one of the parties from being appointed as an arbitrator, since he cannot be regarded as an impartial officer - The provisions of Clause 11 do not constitute an arbitration agreement thus High Court ought not to have relegated the parties to the Chief Engineer on the strength of Clause 11 - The provisions of Clause 11 incorporate the trappings of an arbitral tribunal - Hence appeal allowed, Writ petition be restored

[ Para : 1,9, 20, 22, 24, 25]

Law Point : whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal on the strength of Clause 11 of the agreements between the parties and whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, justifying the referral to the Chief Engineer under Clause 11

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 136, Art. 226
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 7, Sec. 2

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

IMPORTANT

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.

Published by:

Amit Nanda

for Current Law Solutions

Gr. Floor, Karanjia Building, 651 JSS Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002

Tel:- 09869443478

E-Mail: jainabook@gmail.com. Website: www.currentpublications.com

------------------