Nominal Index [Citation 176 - 187]Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. v. HDFC Bank Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179M/s. OM...
Nominal Index [Citation 176 - 187]
Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. v. HDFC Bank Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
Motwane Private Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 181
'K' Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
Soheb Sageerali Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. v. Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Commission of India & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to create awareness in public about the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option on electronic voting machines (EVM).
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM Joshi noted that the petitioner, one Suhas Wankhede, had previously filed an identical PIL in which the court had addressed the issue adequately.
“We find that the Election Commission has already come out with a manual on Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), which was published in July 2020. The SVEEP Strategy 2022-2025 (4) was also published…Having considered the above factors and the steps taken by the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, and the fact that this Petitioner had filed an identical Petition earlier, this PIL Petition is dismissed”, the court further observed.
Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
The High Court of Bombay held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute.
Case Title: Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. v. HDFC Bank Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise.
Case Title: Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
The Bombay High Court held that having a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) driving licence does not make a person ineligible to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), as section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for a minimum one-year-old LMV licence as a pre-requisite for HGV licence.
Justice Shivkumar Dige set aside a judgment by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refused to hold an insurance company liable in a motor accident on the ground that the offending vehicle was an LMV, but the driver possessed a driving license for HGV.
“This Section prescribes one year minimum driving experience in light motor vehicle before a person issuing driving license to drive a transport vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case the driver of offending vehicle was holding driving license for heavy good vehicle. Though it is categorized in different category, as per Section 10 but after getting experience in driving LMV, the license in HGV is issued. So possessing the license of HGV and driving the LMV vehicle cannot be a ground to say that the driver was not eligible to drive the LMV vehicle”, the court observed.
Case Title: M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
The Bombay High Court held that the revenue officers are bound by the decisions of appellate authorities while disposing of quasi-judicial issues.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale observed that the mere fact that the order is not acceptable to the department, in itself an objectionable phrase, can furnish no ground for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by the competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result would only be undue harassment of assessees and chaos in the administration of tax laws.
Case Title: Motwane Private Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 181
The Bombay High Court held that the Trademark Registrar cannot refuse to renew a trademark on the grounds of delay if it has not been removed from the register after issuance of removal notice under section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla directed the Registrar to renew three of the petitioners' trademarks, which inadvertently remained on the Trade Marks Register despite lapse in renewal.
“When there is a two-way lapse, that is, a lapse not only on the part of the registered proprietor in not making an application for renewal of registration, but also a lapse on the part of respondent no. 1 (Registrar), in not issuing notice of removal of the trade mark, the result would be, that the mark although not renewed would continue to remain on the register of respondent no.1, shown as the mark of the registered proprietor. In these circumstances, certainly an opportunity is available to the registered proprietor to make an application for renewal, for the reason that the mark is not removed from the register of trade marks, maintained by the Registrar.”
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the trademark proprietor challenging the non-renewal of its trademarks.
Case Title: 'K' Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) and a writ petition challenging additional fees imposed for delay in applying for various vehicle related services including renewal of driving license and vehicle registration.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor held that the additional fees do not constitute a penalty but are a legitimate charge for the processing of delayed applications.
“Section 211 of the parent Act (Motor Vehicles Act), if interpreted appropriately, vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed applications for certain purposes such as for seeking renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle. We also have no hesitation to hold that the levy of additional fee in this case, is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in disguise”, the court held.
The court disagreed with the judgment of the Madras High Court striking down levy of additional fees.
Retrospective Legislation Can't Affect Vested Rights Of Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
The Bombay High Court held that retrospective legislation cannot affect the vested rights of the assessee.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that when the Department has extended the last date from February 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021, it can only extend the deadline but cannot introduce a new concept of eligibility as of February 1, 2021, which is not in the Income Tax Act itself. Though the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) relaxed the rigors of the provisions of the Income Tax Act for the benefit of assessees, it is not open to the CBDT to put in new rigors or impediments to the rights of an assessee in a press release or a notification that are contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Soheb Sageerali Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education cannot cancel the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) re-examination results merely because the student did not collect the marksheet within 6 months.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain allowed a writ petition filed by a student challenging the cancellation of his 2018 result and seeking issuance of the marksheet.
“We fail to understand the stand of Respondent No.2 (Maharashtra Board) as to when a student has cleared his re-examination with improved marks then merely because of the ministerial act of the student not having collected the marksheet, his result itself stands cancelled. There is no logic beyond such a refusal or cancellation”, the court held.
Case Title: Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
The Bombay High Court directed the Trademark Registrar to decide within four weeks of filing applications for renewal or restoration of expired trademarks in cases wherein no notice under section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act was issued to remove them from the registry.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni, while directing the restoration of a trademark that had been removed without notice, passed this general direction so parties don't have to unnecessarily approach the court for renewal/restoration in such cases.
“This would preclude such parties from resorting to unwarranted litigation against the Registrar of Trademarks by approaching this Court or resorting to any other legal proceedings. In our opinion, such applications if made are required to be accordingly decided by the Registrar of Trademarks as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks of such application/s being made following the principles of law as discussed in Motwane Private Ltd. (supra) by taking a decision at the departmental level”, the court observed.
Fresh Tender Must Be Issued If Only One Bid Received Within Deadline: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
The Bombay High Court quashed a tender notice issued by the Latur City Municipal Corporation (LCMC) for the selection of an operator for the collection, transportation, and processing of municipal solid waste.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar found various irregularities in the tender process. It directed LCMC to issue a fresh tender notice in accordance with existing laws and government resolutions.
The deadline of bid submission expired on February 28, 2024, up to 2.00 pm, however, the extension was granted to March 5, 2024. The reason for the extension of the deadline was that there was only single bidder who was qualified.
The petitioner argued that as per the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018, issued by the PWD, after LCMC realized that there is only one bid, it should have invited a fresh tender. The court noted the lack of justification for the extension of the deadline and questioned why the guidelines outlined in the Government Resolution dated September 27, 2018, were not followed. No documentary evidence was provided to support the decision to extend the bid time, the court said.
Case Title: Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. v. Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory.
The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group of companies' doctrine by the arbitral tribunal.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to establish a system and determine accountability for awarding compensation in cases where accidents or deaths occur due to negligence by the municipal corporation and other civic bodies.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata took suo motu cognizance of news reports and an article published in the Deccan Herald about two children, aged 4 and 5 years, who were found dead in a water tank that did not have a proper cover or lid.